I checked in on this video comment section and noticed a lot of people thought the original thumbnail (which I've now updated) was calling them "dumb" for having bought a 1080p monitor in the past. This was never the message I intended to convey. I understand that most people on a 1080p display purchased it a few years ago when it probably did make a lot more sense than a 1440p monitor. The goal of this video is to revisit that value proposition in 2024 based on improvements to 1440p monitor pricing and technology as well as better and more widespread upscaling technology allowing weaker GPUs to drive a 1440p display at the same framerates as a 1080p display while achieving better than 1080p image quality.
I'm sorry I ever commented, Daniel...I hardly ever do. .l am a disabled senior on a fixed income and went budget everything with AMD...and FSR still sucks. My first gaming computer was a 486 with a 3dfx voodoo card ...so I have been around for awhile. I really enjoy your content.
@@Laohu7777 The new FSR got way better, yet, ofen times is not supported yet. I would advice you to try out Reshade, you can counter many disadvantages of upscaling with it and you can push the graphic fidelity/atmosphere quite a bit. Used to playing on 1440p triples with a GTX 970 upscaled from 720p or even less. If there's a will, there's a way. Some fellows looking at my upscaling + Reshade don't believe me it's 720p on 1440p screens. A 486 with a voodoo? That's some CPU bottleneck action, yet those GPUs were quite CPU-independent back then, right?
@electricant55 how? Most people just turn on dlss anyways because "more fps" so yeah, most people aren't running 1080p native and wouldn't even keep it that way if it meant less fps
Man, you need to learn to save money. I can assure you that very few people buying 4090 don't feel the impact on their finances. You can get GREAT 2nd hand monitors 1440p for under $200. For example Gigabyte M27Q V2 or LG 27GP850-B were some of the go-to monitors just a couple of years ago someone paid 500+ for and now they're hitting the market. Facebook marketplace and similar local markets are literal goldmine for gems like this.
I have played 4K with God Rays in Far Cry 4 using a $300 Gtx 970. That was 10 years ago via DSR. With the help of the internet, you still had 10 years of being dumb. It's inexcusable.
Well not everyone can afford a gaming hardware to run game so 1080p.... With gaming requirements been bumped up for no reason whatsoever when a 4gb ram, 3gb vram pc is running cyberpunk in 40fps in city is crazy... What we need is optimisation.. If gane developers do it, we can buy 1080p of 4k screen.. Even with fsr, dlss, not every game is good at it.. Lot more detail 2:09.. Majority of times, it's not visible and you play games for entertainment not for detail...
@@jooyichen So you had a mid-high end GPU 10 years ago and played a 2014 game at 4K...? who cares about that? are you implying AAA 2024 games are as hard to run as FC4? lmao A 4070 can't even get 60fps on some games at Ultra settings and native 4K, most people can't afford it to begin with, your $300 970 would cost around $400 due to inflation, a 4070 costs around $540 today, then you also have to add in the rest of the system, most people can't afford that and with a weaker GPU like the 6750XT or the overpriced 4060 you aren't going to have a good experience at 4K even with DLSS/FSR
@@Weroleytor The few good new games doesn't justifiy a $1.000+ GPU for me. I'm happy with my $300 RX 6700XT. It depends on what games you are playing. I mostly play games that are 10 years old or older, racing games and shooters. I'm using triple screens, with some settings and Reshade I could pull off a playable framerate with this card @ 4K, yet, I only own 1440p monitors, I'm completely fine with. Please don't compare an RX 6750xt to a 4060, the 4060 is way weaker in rasterization and way overpriced. I'm with you, that both cards are not good for 4k, but Reshade can work wonders...
@@iikatinggangsengii2471high hz? 1080 is the best resolution if you want high refresh rate experience... Cause it still looks good and doesn't impact performance
Not everyone on planet Earth lives in a 1st world country. 1440p gaming is still expensive in most 3rd world countries. The average wage here in the Philippines is $300 a month. PC parts are 30-50% more expensive here compared to the USA. 1050ti and RX570s are still in demand here.
Coming from India, yes things are expensive in hardware but software is cheaper much cheaper for us and although old GPUs are in demand, they are terrible value. You're still getting the best from 6600 and 3060 or A750.
@@DragonOfTheMortalKombat My guy. In India you can buy a gigabyte g5 with an rtx 4050 75w for ~65k, if not cheaper with sales + schemes. Thats ~$750 which is pretty good for rx6600 levels of performance. Heck, you could even buy an rtx 2050 or 3050 laptop for ~45-55k which is ~$540 to $650. Thats around rx570 to gtx 1660 levels of performance.
the thing is, daniel came from a place of abundance. when we have a 1080p that still works just fone, ain't no way in hell we'd be getting a 1440p when that money can be used for better PC hardware. and a bunch of fools down here could never even imagine someone think spending 200-300 USD to replace a perfectly fine 1080p monitors is biscuits. the video's thumbnail says 1080 is dumb, he opened out by pointing out 1080p users having a larger margin in Steam survey. Idk about you but that is straight up insulting, not even throwing shades. It don't matter what scientifique results he conducted says, it's not about telling ppl to buy 1440p monitors, it's about being blatantly ignorant and dismissive while making his point. I'm sorry but if he wanted to provide a case study then there's no need to call out 1080p user like they live in the part. I reason is as straight forward as it gets, mfs just can't afford a new one when the current is fine.
upscaling is kind of made for 1440p and up not for 1080p it just shows that upscaling is not considered good enough, while in reality it is far better at 4k and 1440p then it is at 1080p
One positive thing about 4K is, when I had a 1440p monitor, I often chose not to use DLSS/FSR. It was ok sometimes, but not in all games. With 4K native monitor, running games at DLSS/FSR is ok, where native resolution is like 1440p...
DLAA is the star of the show for 1080p and I also used custom DLSS with DLSSTweaks to get UltraQuality (0.77) when I needed a boost on my 2060 super. It was enough to get me over 60 in the tougher to run games and looked very similar to native. UltraQuality is for 1080p
@@TechTusiast is that with AA on or AA disabled? cause 4K while your playing the game I doubt you can actually see the jaggies anyways. I mean all these reviews always have to zoom in to 200x to 300x just show you jaggies. I'm just thinking about how close some people are to these massive 43"+ 4K screens while playing & still complain. It's like they're 10 inches away from the screen or less. Just imagine that in your head.... LOL
yeah, upscaling to 4k looks really good, because you're working with a much higher source resolution. upscaling to 1080p or even 1440p looks noticeably worse.
@@itsaUSBline True. It's def the way to go, upscaling is the future, getting better and better. And yeah, ofc it's better with more native res. With my old GTX 970 I sometimes rendered half of 1440p on triple screens and upscaled it. Some older games would run @ 60+fps and looked okay, but ofc it was noticable. Tell you what, Reshade can work wonders! You can make e.g. 720p look amazing if you know how.
This is definitely for a 1st-world audience. $300 in the 3rd world feeds a person for 2-3 months. Possibly longer if you spend wisely and cook at home. I bet $300 would barely last 1 month for an American's feed. Huge salary differences and costs of living. Wallet bottle-necking is also not just a meme.
I pay around 100-150 per month on food in Germany. If I really wanted to, I could push that below 100, but then I would never treat myself to something nice.
@@peterfischer2039 Well, i pay around 110€ for 10 days, just for me. But i cannot eat "normal" food, due to my condition. Than, i pay 200€ for my son food, that will give him, 15 to 20 days. This is in Portugal!
You're missing one crucial detail here. Most people aren't playing at 1080p by choice, but through necessity. Spending 300$ on a Display for someone who's still gaming on a 5-10 year old GPU and struggles to maintain 60FPS on Low/Medium settings makes absolutely zero sense. Especially when the difference in visual quality, as shown by your comparison, is minimal and barely perceivable unless you're looking for it. You can add Sharpness to your 1080p display through things like ReShade and achieve a similar visual effect to DLSS, so personally I would recommend those free alternatives instead of wasting 200-300$ on a Display when that money could be put towards buying a new GPU/CPU, which are the far more important components for gaming since it doesn't matter how good your Display looks if you can't maintain a steady framerate.
I agree with the general sentiment, but come on. ReShade sharpness cannot "achieve a similar visual effect to DLSS". When it comes to what DLSS is doing to that image, I honestly think sharpness is one of the smaller issues. There is more detail, more temporal stability, and, lastly, yes, a little bit extra sharpness.
If you tweak your ReShade Sharpness settings properly, it'll make your games look like they're running on higher than actual settings since the Sharpness will add a "fake detail" effect to your image. Obviously it can't match DLSS in terms of quality, but it's a "good enough" FREE alternative to buying a new Display. I know because I've been using this trick on my last GPU, the GTX 960 and a 900p Display, and I would've been mad to buy a new Display, just so that I could upscale the image from 1440p, instead of getting a new GPU.
That's not true, like at all. A lot of people may be playing at 1080p because they need to, but not all of them. I got my 1440p monitor for $130 secondhand with a year warranty. Most GPUs are capable at playing e sports games, 1440p native, let alone DLSS, and even AAA games from the past decade will do the same. Both at acceptable frame rates.
@@verde5738 Okay well, that's you, but anyone who isn't blind will tell you that you are gaming on one of the worst combinations in the history of the world (although your performance is probably okay at that resolution) when it comes to visual fidelity, and that unless you live in a Third World country where that is your only choice, you have absolutely no excuse for not saving up little by little, to get yourself something like a 1080ti and afterward a used 1440p monitor like I did which cost me $130.
I played Doom 3 upscaled from, as far as I remember, 2880x1800 (or maybe 2800x1800) via LosslessScaling app, using FSR1, which is nowhere near the DLSS/XeSS/FSR3 level of quality. And it looked decent on a 4K monitor. You would need to inspect the picture really hard to find the minute imperfections. Now imagine 4K upscaled to 5Kor even 8K using actual advanced algorithms.
@@VanyaYlianov He's implying that people will have 6k or 8k monitors by then, and that Owen will be recommending that people upscale from 2880p with them, but I think he's joking. Somehow I don't think that resolutions above 4k are going to be popular by 2030, or even years afterward, as you are definitely getting diminishing returns in subjective image quality at 6k or 8k. The 4k resolution standard could last for a very, very long time. Improvements in other aspects of image quality are likely to matter more, like just having ever improving and ever more affordable displays which can do high-contrast per pixel (such as with Oled displays), and high color accuracy.
@@syncmonism I definitely think resolution is going to remain fairly constant while color accuracy, response times, and contrast make the major innovations. Higher resolution displays will still have their use in professional work where you are working with 5k or 8k source footage, but for media consumption and regular use, even 4k is fairly overkill unless you have a larger monitor or are using a large TV as your display, especially considering its large performance cost compared to native 1440p with only a very minor quality uplift that is partially negated by using DLAA on the 1440p monitor anyways.
Majority of PC Gamer's don't live in a first world country. When a new "cheap" 300$ monitor is more than a month's salary you start to value hardware differently. One thing I can recommend for those people is to activate DSR Scaling (or Radeon Super Resolution). Allowing games to run above native resolution. Then use DLSS- or FSR Quality. The card will super sample and downscale the graphics to your native resolution. Improving image quality drastically. This works for older cards like the 1050Ti and RX580 using FSR2+ as well (although it can be a hit or miss depending on how much "shimmering" the implementation has)
The three largest countries (India, China, US) are ~40% of world pop. China gets its own special GPUs like the RTX Dragon or AMD's Golden Rabbit Edition. Is China a developing country or a developed country?
what's the point of watching tech videos at all then? 99% of what is shown on these channels doesn't apply to you if 300$ is your month's salary anyway.
Remember using just basic anti-aliasing back in the early/ mid 2000s? You could run a game at 16xAA or 8x AA , the visual quality of the game was Mega sharp and clear, no jaggies period .. no blur whatsoever. Not like modern AA, which basically blurs the crap out of your image to varying degrees. there is still jaggies on everything if you look through the blur.
@alargecorgi2199 No, they moved on post process AA since MSAA doesn't work well with deferred rendering. Big problem is that in almost every new game you can't turn off that f*** post process AA. And it looks crap, blurry mess. Usually DLSS and even FSR looks way better, in that aspect it's true that 'DLSS is better than native'. But in reality all 3 of them looks way worse than native without AA. Ofc with AA turned off the game looks pixelated, but just let ppl decide what they prefer. Me the latter.
@alargecorgi2199 Based on Steamsurvey, 4k is not even at 4% while 1080p at 57%. It will take a long time for 4k to be mainstream. Unfortunately, since the best AA is the biggest PPI when you cant see any pixel on the display. 27" 4k probably close to it, yet to see this combination.
basic anti-aliasing in the early 2000s was crap. you're left with native AA which kills GPU and QuinCunx AA from NVIDIA which was literal crap. GPU HP wasn't that great during the geforce/geforce2 times.
I think Daniel has gotten used to having a teachers salary on top of some YT pocket money. The reason people are running 1080p is because wages haven't kept up with inflation, so they're already running upscaling on medium settings at 1080p. And if they manage to scrounge up $300 for a PC upgrade they'll get a 6700XT that can do 1080p High/Ultra Native. Getting a $300 1440p monitor, instead, and going to DLSS/FSR Performance on medium settings does not feel like "getting something".
True, what he said is only true for some people, I've had low-end PCs for most of my life, so I'd have used FSR performance even at 1080p, but I'll probably upgrade to a laptop with a good AMD iGPU or one with the 4060.
people just don't know how 900p save alot of people with Intel HD Graphics back in 2010s... Playing Mass Effect 2, Dishonored, Far Cry 3 on Intel igpu was a godsend for people with office-use only PC.
@@nickochioneantony9288True, but theses monitors are still good to this day if you have a low budget and don't want to upgrade the graphics card as much as the average 1440p gamer.
You ask why I run 1080p and not 1440p monitor, in my country the cheapest 1440p monitor is 300 dollars locally. If I buy the cheapest 1440p monitor on amazon its 180 dollars + 235 dollar(import fee). which put it at 415 dollars.
Daniel has the point, meanwhile it also involves several concerns for some of the users here: 1) As you mentioned, it will be a bit different case if the users are using AMD GPU which is using FSR, not DLSS. 2) It is much cheaper in US and certain 1st world countries but different story to 2nd or 3rd world countries. The price and the living standard is day and night difference😅 3) Many users said that 1080p display is blur or pixelated. I believe most of them are comparing from a 27" 1080p rather than a 23.8" 1080p display, the latter looks sharp. 3) A lot of 1440p options available in YT nowadays but VAST majority of video resolution is still 1080p maximum. I think this one is depending on personal acceptance level in term of the sharpness of the image quality. As well as watching a 1080p content outside of YT or any online platform. I saw some users mentioned that watching 1080p content on YT is different than watching a 1080p downloaded content, the latter is better if not mistaken?👀
@@dingickso4098 It already looks sharp on a 23.8" 1080p display, of course it will for 21.5" 😄 However, I know a lot of gamers love 1440p too due to the PPI is higher and bigger screen 😀
My son runs a 6750 XT, 5600x, 16GB CL14 3200Mhz, on a Samsung 60hz 24”, streams on twitch and he is perfectly fine with it. I have a 4080 Super with a 7800X3D, 64GB CL 6000Mhz on a 240hz 1440p panel and thinking off buying OLED. Why? Because I’m always on RUclips seeing reviews and wanting the best. Otherwise I would possibly would be using the same rig as him.
That's what I do on my 3080 & to me it looks AMAZING 😱😱😱 I have a 42 inch LG C3 I bought a few months ago & once you can get 4K without any DLSS or FG I'll upgrade my GPU 🤦🏿🤷🏿
Just can get a bit more tricky because of VRAM constraints. Some games from from 8GB VRAM usage on 1080p high to like 10GB when you go to 1440p+Upscaling. RT&FG add another 2GB VRAM usage on top of that. At 4k output this will be even more, so on 3000 cards you may have to drop to lower textures because of that or get texture popping or stutters in unoptimized titles, or crashes in terrible releases).
This works even if you're actually on a 1080p monitor as well, render at 1440p DLLS Q or B, then downscale back to 1080p, way less aliasing, more detail and overall better image quality, about the same performance.
@@momensaber1189 rendering at higher than native resolution? you just do it, has nothing to do with what graphics card you have. Maybe you're talking about the DLSS part of it, to make the rendering less taxing, FSR would be the AMD version of it, which is an upscaler that works on any modern gpu, GeForce, Radeon or Arc.
@@MaxIronsThird I don't think amd has something cool such as dlls q or b. We have something called vsr and I tried it and honestly it looked weird.. 😞 not the result I wanted
@@momensaber1189 It's FSR, and you're right. The biggest win of supersampling an upscaled image is using the better upscaling algorithm for better image stability. FSR is great at reconstructing detail, but it fails horribly at image stability, so you'll likely get a shaper, but artefact ridden image. Honestly I'd just add a sharpening filter at that point.
@@iurigrang I tried adding it through amd adrenaline and honestly it doesn't help much. But well, better than nothing I'd say. Also fsr has lots of shimmering in image and sometimes ghosting too
1080p will continue to be the most common resolution and there are reasons for it. Some of which you have stated in this video. The main detriment to image quality in today's games is *temporal anti-aliasing and upscaling* It significantly blurs the image. Especially *in motion* If you disable temporal AA at basically *any* resolution, then you will get a significant boost in clarity. It is because of this, that 1080p might seem bad to you. 1080p without temporal AA butchering it is still very much fine. It's not the resolution that's the issue. It's the anti-aliasing.
@@LeConseilDuRap The 1080p native footage that he was showing here was practically sub-900p in terms of motion clarity. If he would've shown native 1080p *without* any kind of temporal AA or upscaling nonsense, then he would've actually gotten true 1080p clarity.
TAA has obliterated image quality immensely in moderns games, despite what people think sharpening doesn't fix it at all. If you want a closer to native image whilst using TAA you need to be running the game at 150% or 200% resolution scale, but even then depending how terrible the particular implementation is it's still going to look shit as soon as you move at all.
1080p will be surpassed, upscalars will make it easy for more GPUs to run higher resolutions. Monitors and display prices are going down. Your TAA statement doesn't factor in the fact that most modern games have high levels of details that are too much for the no. of pixels on your monitor. Games with Mesh shaders, nanite etc will require you to have higher resolutions for distant objects not to become a pixelated mess
Due to the cost, I want my gpu to be relevant for as long as possible. Why would I artificially shorten its usable life span intentionally. Besides gpu's and monitors capable of running 1440p costs more than those capable of 1080p gaming.
You're forgetting not everyone are living in wealthy countries and can afford 1440p screens, not to mention fast and even more expensive GPU to support it. 1080p will stay dominating resolution for very long time.
even older GPUs have better efficiency at Mpix/s render output at higher resolution, so you may be wrong... cheap 1440p is a thing for sure, but there's another middle ground option. Downscaling... You render the image at higher resolution and you get much better image quality with almost no FPS cost if your game is already bottlenecked...
here cheapest 1440p is some tesla 6ms 100hz ips 27inch for 162 euro, like half to 1 year ago cheapest was 256 euro 144hz, now 222, for 162 euro 60 or 75 hz is best u could get before at that price, they will prob get cheaper as oled get more popular / common
@@Azccccc This statement is SOOOOOO wrong!!!!! The only games that will be seriously impacted by 100hz refresh are competitive shooters. ANY and I repeat ANY other game running at 90hz or above will be very smooth and see diminishing returns with higher refresh rates.
@@Azccccc like pdmerritt said, if u are competetive player, 144hz or more is better but in my case im playing single player games more, 100hz is good enough for me, im atm at 60
The problem of 1440p monitors is that you are going to see native 1440p at some point, and then you will notice how trash is 1080p and all upscaling including dlss... then you have to have a better GPU for the same 1080p performance... there is no fix there... if you can keep yourself out of 1440p and 4k, it will save you money if you don't know better...
No, I play on a 27in 1440p monitor and I basically have to pixel-peep with my eye two inches away from the screen to tell the difference in quality from native and DLSS Quality. From a comfortable playing distance which is at least an arm's length or more. I cannot tell a difference.
Most of the world isn’t as privileged as the US in terms of average buying power. I’m actually kind of surprised as high a percentage of gamers world-wide are even on that high of a resolution, to be honest. It’s good to be aware and appreciative to be so fortunate.
And this fact is actually beneficial from an environmental perspective. Encouraging people to drop their perfectly capable and well-working hardware that they enjoy to switch to a bit better image quality is so wasteful and american.
@@liljom This "wastefulness" leads to an affordable second hand market....more and more people can't see the bigger picture. If everyone holds onto his stuff, fewer people could afford it as a used product....
Not entirely fair, because its really not the actual monitor itself that's the problem, just how games use post processing that don't look good at that resolution level. If you use dsr or dldsr on a 1080p screen it looks amazing.
Not using DLDSR in the comparison is criminally missing a crucial aspect of 1080p gaming. DLDSR 1.78x + DLSS P is pretty much the sweetspot of good performance and still good image. If you can go up to DLSS Q or DLDSR 2.25x that's great but that's on a game by game basis. Buying a 1440p to be forced to play at best DLSS P 1440p is a waste. Especially when you really can't go lower than that. At least with 1080p if performance is really bad you can just do regular non-dldsr dlss.
@@albert2006xp yeah, I've been using 2880x1620 dldsr with DLSS quality to basically get DLAA+ on my 4070. Runs great and looks amazing on my 24 inch 1080p monitor. For more intensive games I can just drop DLSS to lower settings and it still looks quite good
1440p 165Hz monitors are available for around $150 or even less where I live, so it makes very little sense to buy 1080p. It’s depending on where you live obviously, but it’s crazy that in China you could find them for around $110
All I can say is as an Southeast Asian, this video really only applies to those living in 1st world countries, especially North America and maybe Europe where 1440p monitors are more abundant, accessible, and therefore affordable. This is not the case for hundreds of 3rd world countries where 1080p or even 720p and 768p are still used in homes and businesses! Affording 1440p capable hardware is also difficult due to lower salaries in 3rd world countries. I don't think people like us will get a taste of 1440p until probably the late 2020s or even 2030s
I have a 4k 65-inch TV and a 22-inch 1080p monitor. Just by using DLDRS 1620p and then using DLSS gives really improved image quality and it's not that much different image quality-wise when I compare it to my 4k TV running at native. You can see some shimmering when you zoom in compared to running at native 4k but doesn't make much difference when playing and not zooming to find flaws.
"maybe europe"... I'll have you know that our minimum wage is on average higher than in the US and health insurance is included. Don't lump us together with those barbarians!
It seems that this seller is speaking on behalf of Amazon to get you to buy more stuff when you do not need it. He is an Amazon operative. So in reality, the difference between 1080 and 1440p is minimal and Ghost of Tsushima is gorgeous on 1080p. Don't waste your money to make Amazon operatives richer
When I got my 1440p 144hz monitor last year for my 6700XT, I was blown away by how clear everything looked. It blows 1080p out of water. Even old games like Doom and Minecraft looked more sharp and clear. And of course, modern games looked better too, like Doom Eternal and Spider Man Remastered. I never was able to go back to 1080p after that. My games finally looked like I thought they were going look like, the colors too on the monitor were way better, a lot more vibrant. I don’t really use upscaling that much, I mainly play at native, as most of the games I play are optimized. I would use it though, if I needed a performance boost.
The comparison between 1440p and 18080 is dramatic. Going to 1440 you can lower most settings and it will still look much better than 1080 in most ways
Agree! I upgraded from a 24" 1080p monitor to an MSI 27" 1440P/180hz/IPS/HDR and it was less than £180 I was surprised how good 1080p looked on it, even without special up-scaling settings. That's good news if your GPU budget is limited to a 8gb card, like the 4060 or 7600.
This "trick" also works with a 1080p monitor. To do this, simply activate DLDSR in the control panel, which allows you to set the game to 1440p. Together with DLSS Quality, you still get a much better result than 1080p natively with roughly the same performance. A 1440p monitor is therefore not necessary.
It's funny to me because the only time I tried this was with cyberpunk and the upscaled result was terrible so I just assumed it's the case in every game.
I think there was a point early on I didn't like the upscaling in Cyberpunk. They changed it in some version and it looked better. Than after enough time and trial and error, I settled on a 3.7.x version of DLSS that I place into every game and looks great to me all around, so no it's not every game and you can manually put in the version you like best. But yeah, there was a time when I remember Cyberpunk looking FSR clay like on an older version and I couldn't understand how anyone would ever say it looks better than native. I always been on a 50-55 inch 4k OLED though so if theres an imperfection, you'll see it.
apparently DLSS Q at 1440p and above looks better than native in Cyberpunk so I'm not sure what you're about, even FSR is decent enough to make the +40% FPS jump worth it
@@g2fiora yea but it wasn't the case when it launched. this was definitely upgraded later in the lifecycle, because I remember the same thing and it's still the case for tons of games. DLSS isn't something that magically works, it's the actual gamedev and nividia driver updates making it work. And yes, today, DLSS on cyberpunk looks incredibly good, but earlier on it was a mess of washed pixels and a very blurry look.
@@g2fiora Then you might wanna get glasses and hearing aid because the quality is trash to anyone who can see well, and it's also said 2 minutes into the video if you could hear well.
It’s all about pixel density, 1080p on 24 inch looks just as good as 1440p on 27 inch. Logically 1440p looks better on 27 inch or more. Just pick the right display size according to the resolution. 24 inch 1080p, 1440p 27 inch, 4K 32 inch, is everything the same …
I've been using DLDSR at 2880x1620 on a 1080p 24 inch display and the quality difference is pretty noticeable sometimes I turn on dlss and it pretty much runs the same as 1080p but looks way better even on a small display.
If you are used to TN panels stay away from VA panels. The pixel response rate is less so when objects are moving across a dimmed background or any high contrast scenario you can see streaks or motion blur. Even a high refresh rate cant fix that VA technology. It's like a ripoff that companies made newer tech worse just cause it was probably cheaper for them to manufacture. Also HDR is not worth it at 600+ and it will just add more overhead on the processing overall.
I just (reluctantly) jumped to 1440p a couple of months ago and so far, my VRAM usage across AAA games on the RX 6600 8GB have been largely similar. I think that as long as you keep the same settings as you did in 1080p, VRAM won't be that much of an issue, if at all.
@@BenyaminLorit yeah I saw some benchmarks on BF2042 on a 4060 ti 8gb and in 1080p it used 5.5gb and on 1440p 6gb, quite a small difference. Especially if you consider that DLSS reduces preformance the difference is very small.
@@KumoiwaUpscaling still requires VRAM to run, and the difference between 960p and 1080p is small enough that I suspect it would be fully covered by DLSS. It shouldn't be an issue in most games, but it can push your game into the struggle zone if you were previously skirting just below it.
I am not sure how fair the comparison is. A decent 1080p monitor is usually 24inches compared to a standard 1440p monitor which is about 27inch. What you are comparing is 1080p on a 1440p monitor. So you have a far lower pixel density. I would like for you to compare to image quality of a 24inch 1080p monitor NATIVE and a 27inch 1440p monitor with DLSS.
I mostly stayed on 1080p because I couldn't afford a 1440p high refresh rate monitor for esports games. I found a great deal on a 1080p 280hz monitor but I really want to try 1440p one day especially because I have a 5600X with a 6800XT and that gpu is getting very under-utilized.
In your case, you should get a bigger monitor. But many people don't get bigger monitor because they will need high end GPU like yours to support gaming in those. And such GPUs cost near 900-1000 dollars in many countries.
I'm still on 1080p. If one day I decide to go up I'd get 4k. Because I heard 1080p movies look really bad on a 1440p. I'm not only gaming on the PC I also like to watch movies and series.
First of all, 1080p, 2K, 4K movies look really great at 1440p resolution. Second, at 4:46 Daniel's recommending to buy an HDR 1000 mini LED monitor. With proper HDR 1000 support even 1080p HDR games, movies, youtube videos will look absolutely mind blowing on a 1440p monitor.
I can afford a 1440p monitor, but can't really justify it when my 1080p monitor works fine. Also, I'd rather upgrade all of the way to a 4K monitor, but want a faster GPU for that. So, I'm making do with my perfectly fine 1080p monitor until I can justify buying a new GPU and a 4K monitor at the same time.
Only reason I shot for1080p gaming is because I really don’t have that much time to game. Would I like a higher end rig with nice peripherals, yes but I spent 99$ on a 165hz 1080p monitor and that's way more within what I can justify. 1440p is nice and I would love to be there but can’t justify spending more than 800 for a setup when I realistically only play like 8ish hours a week.
1060/70 lack DLSS support and are getting pretty weak for even 1080p in a lot of newer games. The 3060 and 4060 are getting covered at 1080p and 1440p in upcoming videos (already available on early access for channel members).
@@KingFeraligator yes, you can see how they perform at 1440p and 1080p in those videos, although I didn't put DLSS 1440p side by side with 1080p like I did in this video the same information is all there.
Instead of buying a new monitor, use AMD VSR 1440p and Nvidia DLDSR 1440p on your 1080p panel then use FSR 3 or DLSS / XESS / TSR Downscale Desktop (Windowed Borderess forced Games) + Upscale Game, still beats Native 1080p + TAA in majority of games. AMD VSR / NVIDIA DLDSR is there for your 1080p panels, and KEEPS your Refresh rate active. So 1080p 120Hz can be 1440p/1620p/4K 120Hz
That's what I do except on 1440p ultrawide 😂 But a better option would be just being able to disable TAA... too bad we're stuck with that garbage being forced everywhere nowadays...
No, vsr/DLDSR will never be as good as a new monitor. Due to these foolish advices people justify their bad monitor purchases. If you just want better anti aliasing use DLAA or FSR native AA mods.
If they made high end 1440p 24in monitors, I'd get one. I play much better on 24in and just can't find the right place to put a 27 to make it comfortable.
It is an option in many games now and new releases gives you the option to use DLAA or TAA. But in my experience DLAA is a 10 fps reduction in performance so if you want to play in native and your card can run the game native TAA 60 fps, you will struggle with native DLAA. But the option is there in like, Cybepunk 2077, Starfield, Witcher 3 Next Gen if I remember well, Horizeon Forbidden West, Ghost of Tsushima etc., older not supported titles will not updated but new titles will get it as they get FSR Native as well.
@@TabalugaDragon yep comparisons around upscaling are pointless if you call TAA native. TAA is so far from native quality it's insane people think otherwise, even at 4k the difference is noticeable, quite sad really.
A lot of even modern games don't really have DLAA as an option, so I think the comparison with TAA is important, but I also did feel the lack of a comparison with DLAA was a problem.
I think there is also a need to mention those who are using a 24 inch display vs a 27 inch, you wont really see the tangible benefits of 1440 on a 24 inch display vs a 27 inch
tbh for me it all depends on size of display, and fsr implementation, also res, i am using 1080p but in dying light 2 i didnt notice much of diff, ofc i could see a bit of shimering at distance, but that is to be expected, i have smaller display so thats why i guess, if u have huge tv and are close, even on dlss u can notice diff
I was wondering Daniel Owen's thoughts on FSR on 1440p vs 1080p. he primarily focused on 1080p being dumb in the context of nVidia DLSS upscaling to 1440p
You can watch Hardware Unboxed's latest video on FSR 3.1. He "performance normalized" the results so the results are a bit skewed from a pure image quality perspective. My own conclusion is: FSR Quality at 1440p looks better than 1080p if the game's native TAA is bad (which it is in a lot of games. I often chose MSAA if it's available), and if the native TAA is good it's a toss between being sensitive to jaggies or being sensitive to shimmering. If jaggies bothers you more than shimmering go for FSR Quality at 1440p, if shimmering annoys you, stay on 1080p Native.
I am using 1080p 180HZ 24 inches fast IPS , and I have no intention to upgrade to 1440p. As I know , the next gen GPU is powerful enough to run AAA games 60 FPS in 4K . Not to mention that 1440p is not scale well for 1080p videos and apps , 4K is perfectly scale well . If I am going to upgrade I will upgrade to 4K , 100% not 1440p .
You can say whatever you want about 1440p being a good resolution for you and/or anyone with a graphics card powerful enough for it, but calling 1080p dumb doesn't make any sense, it's the most used resolution because it's cost-effective and offers enough for the average users, which is why they're cheaper and found in many laptops and All-in-one PCs,making fun of users who are still using 1080p won't convince people to upgrade their monitor, especially if the hardware needed costs twice, it's a matter of preference, if you want to upgrade it's great, but don't hate on others who aren't on 1440p just because you've got a "premium" level because of a monitor with a higher resolution, correct me if I'm wrong.
He's not making fun of people with 1080p monitors, he's just informing you that just because you have a 1080p card you can utilize upscaling to get a higher fidelity with barely any performance cost (the whole point of upscaling). Buying a 1440p monitor for a low end pc is not a bad idea. As you said, 1080p is cost effective so the people running it most likely are on a nvidia 60 card or amd 600 card, why not get a higher quality image without also having to upgrade your gpu?
@@TinfoilTimmy If I was building a budget gaming PC now, I would get a 27" 1440p IPS monitor and pair it with a budget 8gb card like a 4060. 1080p still looks good on a 27" 1440p screen, so you can play the latest demanding games at 1080p without much image quality reduction, plus the 8gb VRAM limit becomes less of a concern. I realize now that when you build a gaming PC the monitor should be your first important consideration and the GPU 2nd.
@@tommyh4116 i actually use FSR (with a 1080p monitor mind you) on baldurs gate 3 because the anti aliasing options are so bad, now imagine how much better it would look upscale to 1440p instead of 1080
I recently switched to a 32" 1440p monitor just to see if the pixel density would bother me. I don't have a card that can run 4k natively so I decided to try this out. Surprisingly, I haven't missed the sharpness of a 27" 1440p as much as I thought I would. I do notice more lag when using upscaling, but I eventually adjusted to it. Now I'm wondering if I should just get a 4k OLED monitor now, since upscaling seems to be getting better rapidly.
@@alfonso5177 People who have submitted the survey.....seriously, steam is not a representation of every PC. I was still using a i7-6700 few month back with RX6600 no survey, now i got a new CPU etc Ryzen 5600 i finally got a survey sent to me, what im saying this? because in 3rd world country the cost of some computer parts is so expensive that many users are still using 2016 or much older systems, nowadays given AM4 is getting much cheaper, many are finally upgrading their whole setup. Its also the reason why 1080p would still be dominant for years to come, alot of people don't have extra disposable income for their hobby and given gaming takes away your time alot most are satisfied with 1080p for simply booting few games they play that they enjoy (especially outside of 1st world country that's mostly F2P competitive games).
@@Trisstan20people will always use this "got a low res because I didn't want to spend more on a GPU". It is an incredibly ignorant and short sighted perspective.
WRONG, I'm using DLSS Q at 1080p and I have a great image quality (better than native) while having better perf or if I limit my fps better efficiency than at 1440p. Also my GPU lasts longer before needing to upgrade at 1080p. 1080p in 2024 in nothing like 1080p 10 years ago or even 5 years ago, it's much better because of all the new tech in hardware and software too.
I build my pc in 2023 with a 6750xt and bought a 1080p monitor so that my graphic card can play games coming next year with higher graphics option and i am glad i did that even if my gc was a 2k graphics card. Now i was able to play games like hellblade 2 and Alan wake 2 with medium settings at 1080p and still get above 60fps
Went from 1080p to 1440p wasnt a big difference to me a bit more pixels and sharp, from 1440p to 4k is where it shines and I noticed the difference in clarity and my wallet. Had to get a 4090 paired with it. Otherwise 4k is for enthusiast and for performance 1440p is currenty the way to go. Thats my 2 cents.
@soraceant for 1440p 27 inch is good at 4k 32 or above inches is where it's appropriate for a monitor. I play with 240 hz on 4k the 4090 doesn't always reach that unless u mess with the settings but the graphic fidelity is a sight to behold for sure. Can't go back to 1440p myself since it's a bit blurry, but will do so depending on the performance on 4k.
Not really true, almost every game that uses 3D rendering can select whatever resolution your display supports. A lot of the very old games didn't have UI scaling so that can get a little messy, but otherwise it works.
2 issues with 1440p issue number 1... pricing. Issue number 2... size. 27 inch monitors are simply too big for some people... Because the things you've trained your eyes to see in your peripherals are now suddenly very displaced, and even outside of your field of view altogether. I'm a TF2 gamer, i got almost 2k hours on tf2, and i can tell you that after i swapped to a 1440p monitor, 27 inches, i couldn't see the killfeed anymore. And since i couldn't see the killfeed, i couldn't keep track of who was alive or dead, thus severely reducing my performance in the game. That is a big reason why people are still gaming on 1080p.
@@MindplexLekker17 nice, well they weren't really prevalent at the time this video was made, or when i made this comment. At my local tech shop, there's only 1 available... From AOC, and it only has 165 hz, lemme know when they start having 240 hz. xD
Sorry Daniel. I've been subbed to you for a couple years now, and just have to say, I find your content lately has been pushing the fomo aspect of pc gaming. As in, if we are still playing games on older tech, we are not enjoying it as much as those with the high-end machines. I feel bad for those who are easily convinced that they need higher specs to enjoy pc gaming. There's plenty of enjoyment to be had, even while playing the backlog. I have always hung back a step or two from the cusp of what technology has to offer. The cost to reward factor just isn't enough to justify spending so much. Patience is a rare commodity these days, so l find it surprising and uplifting that so many people are still on 1080p in 2024. The techtuber scene for too long, has perpetuated a message that preaches "your rig's not good enough bruh". And to some degree, they are reaching their target demographic. Intelligence realizes that higher spec technology is better. Wisdom realizes that you don't need it to enjoy life.
I don't think he plays up the FOMO aspect of these things at all. He fairly frequently says "don't upgrade unless there's a reason for you to do so". What a "reason to do so" constitutes is going to be subjective. For some people, like you, it's gonna need to be a damn good reason (eg. my computer doesn't work anymore). For others, it'll be things like "my monitor is not taking advantage of the rest of my system". Both are perfectly fine reasons, and at least in my experience, upgrading usually means passing your old gear down to someone else who will be happy with it. He is giving buying advice for people who are actively in the market for new products, and I think he does a good job of it. If you can get a disproportionately better product for a little more money, and you have the means and desire to do so, you should! You're buying a product either way, and you want something that you will be happy with for a long time. Especially for monitors. If you don't have the means to, or you just don't care about the advantages, that's absolutely fine. Doesn't have to diminish your enjoyment one bit.
You're right! I have a 27" 1440p gaming monitor and recently my 7600 failed. My CPU has no integrated graphics chip, so I found an old GT 610 lying around and installed it, so I can browse the web until I get my new GPU. The GT 610 can only do 1080p but even when stretched out to fit my 27" screen, I was surprised how good the image quality looks! And that's with no special up-scaling enabled. I feel less concerned now about having to buy a budget 8GB GPU if 1080p still looks good on my 1440p monitor. It made me realize how obsessed we have become with everything having to be 2k or 4k.
Or you can use dldsr to run 1440p on ur 1080p monitor then enable dlss for the 960p, and becuase 1080p is above 960p u actualy have enough pixels to display that image, so in short u don’t need a 1440p monitor to do what ur saying
just want to correct you on one point. DLSS takes 960p internal resolution and outputs a 1440p image that means it will still get downsampled to 1080p by DLSDSR and that fact that the game runs on 960p doesn't matter at this point. nevertheless you will get a better image quality than native 1080p and a slight performance hit due to DLDSR.
DLDSR looks kinda weird, both blurry and oversharpened at the same time, even with the slider set to 100% like it should be. Custom Resolutions from the Nvidia Control Panel look way better, it's what I used to use all the time, but they aren't compatible with GSync/Freesync unfortunately. But yeah, downsampling does wonders to image quality.
@@ghost085 there’s a smoothness slider on the nvidia control panel for dsr and dldsr it’s set to 33 percent by default, drop that to 0 to remove the over sharpened blur u speak of
@@johnhughes9766Regular DSR requires 33% or less for a nice image without pixel crawling (4x DSR with 0% slider looks great). But DLDSR works the other way around, you have to set it to 100% to get the default image, and lowering the setting makes the image oversharpened.
I am an intelligent dumb gamer I play at 1440p on my TV and on an IPS 75hz monitor, but I also have a 1080p144hz IPS 24" and sometimes 1080p DLAA looks very good with good framerates and sometimes I prefer that. In general 1080p looks good, but some games are notorious for been blurry and that is not because of 1080p but because of TAA. I have found that when games have good sharpening implemented or when I use quality sharpening (my go tos are Luma, CAS and iMMerse) it is more difficult to notice differences between 1080p and 1440p but you gain so much smoothness. Also if DLSS is available and TAA is bad, then DLAA implemented in game or by DLSSTweaks + the sharpening I mentioned does wonders to the image and you get to keep those frames. I know that I am in the minority, tailoring individual games and setting reshade + DLSSTweaks is not for everyone, it is easy though. I did this with my 2060 super and now I have more breathing room with my vanilla 4070
Daniel's videos are becoming less about news or testing, and more "This is dumb" or "That is stupid". Opinions are dime a dozen on the internet. I could go watch Linus on the WAN Show if I want shallow hot takes.
Upgraded from 1080p to 4k. Before that I thought game graphics weren't that good (lol) but after seeing 4k can't go back. For graphics performance features wise 1440p seems sweetspot.
Nah, not at all. DLSS is acceptable at upscaling 1440p to 4K, awful at anything else. Blurry as hell, simply unusable. I'm considering my first AMD GPU ever just to get something that doesn't cost me half a year's income whilst being made to solely rely on a crutch-technology to barely function. But that's a good few months away at least. Besides, 300 USD is more or less what I earn in a month. With the USD recently going up, it's a little less, actually.
I think we need to get clear on this, some youtubers speak from their couch and forget their content reach the entire world, and they let their mouth run free and videos like this appear. 1080pm IS NOT DUMB!. First of all, says the one that in his own videos stated to be shock to realize people do not play the most recent and demanding games, says the one that stated to be surprise to realize the 3060 is good enough to play the vast majority of games. You think people need path tracing to enjoy their games, you think people need OLED monitor to enjoy their games, you think people need a 4090 to enjoy their games. You are wrong and seems you are not used to people telling you that. Gaming for many people is a hobby and in many occasions is a luxury, the idea that you can just spend money to improve your experience is silly, there are far more important obligations people need to cover as priority. This notion that you need the latest of everything to actually enjoy things, this powerful marketing idea that you need to spend and keep spending is clearly set in your brain little math american teacher. 1080p with a decent GPU and monitor, in vast majority of occasion is enough to truly enjoy videogames, cause the fun is provided by the actual gameplay and not by the fucking upscaling technology or the fucking OLED monitor..... boring game is shit game, no matter what. And finally... you should stop thinking what people should be doing, you are not special enough to tell people what to do.
It's crazy.. I found that you can run a 4k OLED widescreen display and it looks significantly better than 1440p even if its not a 4k GPU. It's crazy! How did we no notice this before! It's like.. duh, I should've just bought the 4k ultrawide OLED for my cheap GPU a looong time ago! Thanks for the wake up call!
the technical idea of the video is good, thing is ppl with 1080p monitors are already at their max budget or even some old gamers invested into 1080p 120-144 hz years ago when it was a thing, imo wait until 4k 4070 ti super pcs drop to 500$ and get a new rig entirely or spend the big stonks now , going to 1440p on low spec pcs is a very bad idea and can destroy their gaming experience
@SweetFlexZ do you have any idea how the world works? just because someone has a job doesn't mean they have money. people need to live, and while the cost of living is increasing more than ever wages are not increasing to match. so how about instead of telling people to "just work", you try taking a look at anything below the surface?
@@theaveragecactus Mate, gaming and pc world is literally a whim, is not necessity like food, if you don't have enough money don't blame someone else, maybe you should get a better job (can't afford a 200€ monitor, weird)
Please not that you dont actually need a 1440p monitor to render in 1440p. You can use DLDSR, to render in 1440p and then you can use dlss quality. And yes, it works using both at same time. You will get 1440p image quality in a 1080p monitor with 1080p level of performance.
I currently run three systems, which I'm constantly comparing in various scenarios. A 1080p 60hz monitor + Xeon E3-1265L v3 + RTX2060S, a 1080p 75hz monitor + R5-5600 + RTX4070 and a 2160p 60hz TV + Xeon E3-1285L v3 + RTX4060. For the second system, the jump in refresh rate is noticeable, but as you go up in image-switching frequency you get diminishing returns. I tested 120hz and 144hz and didn't perceive the differences. This works perfectly fine for a desk scenario. I tested DLSS, but the CPUs would bottleneck the systems. DLAA looks the best and it's the most balanced scenario.
My problem with this is not every game has dlss support And not all gamers have Nvidia cards And based on recent FSR updates, I think amd upscaling is closer to 1080p than it is to 1440p upscaled
I totally agree. This even applies to FSR 2.X in most games. But DLSS is even better, of course. 1080p doesn't make much sense in the era of upscalers. I have rx 6600 and play in 1440p with FSR 2.X set to quality or balanced. The picture quality is waaay better than 1080p and performance is almost the same. I have two monitors: 1440p i 1080p, so I can compare. Greetings from Poland! :)
This is stupid reasoning because a lot of games don't have DLSS/FSR to begin with. Yes, there is driver level, BUT there's catches- only AMD cards from RX 5000 and up have RSR, but it in general looks bad, so there's no point. Nvidia has NIS, but it looks even worse than RSR. There's also the issue of lower end cards needing to use FSR just to get SIXTY frames with 1080p in newer titles. Edit: Going from 1080p to 1440p can also significantly increase VRAM usage. This isn't great when about half of the 58.73% (number using 1080p as of 7/6/2024 12:35 AM) have 3-6GB cards. Another thing is that your base point is around DLSS not FSR or XeSS. At the time of calculating people using DirectX 12 GPUs, 52.73% are using 20 series+, 21.87% are using 700 to 16 series, 10.09% (I'll half it for my calculations) are using AMD, 2.96% are using Intel, and the remaining 12.35% are using "other". The amount using 700-16, half of AMD, and Intel add up to 29.88%. Now res- 19.73% 1440p, 3.91% 2560x1600, 2.25% 3440x1440, 3.73% 2160p, and 0.3% 5120x1440. The first 3 can be ruled as half of the people using 20 series and up, since not many people have 1080/Tis (worse isn't very 1440p viable). Safe to assume the 3.73% and 0.3% are mostly people with 3080/Tis, 3090s, 4080s, and 4090s. So 4.03% of the 52.37% (Now 48.7% for 20 series+). About 1.35% of people with those cards use diff res. I don't have every bit of info, but for simplicity, let's subtract 25.89% for 1440p, 2560x1600, and 3440x1440 from the 48.7%. Subtract the new 22.81% from the 58.73% using 1080p. That's 35.92% of 1080p users using other cards, most are likely the 29.88%. About 50% of 1080p users have cards with no DLSS. There's still 12.35% "other" though. No clue there. The math is extremely rough, but my point with this is that Not only is DLSS not available in every game, but about half of the people don't have access to it anyway. There's still FSR and XeSS, but even then, not every game has them. (I got a little lazy after doing most of the calculations, since I have better things to do)
I wouldn't call it a stupid reasoning, he's kind of right, it's better to buy a 1440p monitor today and upscale from 720p, 1080p to 1440p or use 1080p native in modern games, 1440p native in older games. What's wrong with his reasoning though is at 4:46 he's recommending to buy a famous HDR 1000 mini LED monitor Q27G3XMN by AOC, basically the best bang for your buck on the market. The problem is that HDR monitor costs $280 in North America only. Its price is way, way higher in Europe and all other countries. The same can be said about other mini LED HDR monitors.
There are plenty of good 1440p monitors that are within budget to the majority of consumers. It's not ideal to hold on very old 1080p monitors, as technology advances. You can end up bottlenecking your performance based on the outdated tech, and the low Hz rate. It's also far cheaper to invest in a new monitor when you need to improve your performance in this scenario of using an old monitor. Instead of buying a new/used GPU.
Honestly, I moved from 1080 to 1440 and didn't notice much difference. Then I moved to 4K and still didn't notice much difference. I render at native as well since I have a monster gpu. 1080p is perfectly fine if your monitor is 27" or smaller. Once you get to 32" I think higher resolutions make a lot more sense.
lol bro you can't see a difference between 1440p and 4K?(which is more than 2x pixels from 3.7m to 8.3m) then I suggest you go to see an eye doctor! There is incredible difference on the same monitor size like 27 or 28 inch if you would look side by side. 1080p is only somewhat good on 24 inch or smaller which is 92 ppi and 1440p 27 inch has 109 ppi and 4K 27 is 163 or 157 on 28 inch.
@@parker4447 between 1440 and 1080 also giant diff in pixels(2m vs near 3.7) and u need 2 be blind to to not see it on monitor, but i cant see diff on tv(3m far) or on smartphone(too lil) yet on monitors for me difference is so clear
Sadly, these days the lower end-mainstream cards (6600xt/6650xt/3060/4060) are not enough to run the newest games on 1080p native so people have to use upscaling at 1080p already. If you're already using a 6700xt/6750xt/3060ti/4060ti tho and need a to buy a new monitor this might actually be worth it, considering 1440p >120Hz IPS monitors are hitting the 200€ mark already.
Here's another "trick" I use on my 1080p/60hz TV, if the game only has TAA: I use nvidia super sampling called DSR (enable in control panel) to render at a higher resolution than 1080p but then use DLSS and turn off any TAA. Looks super sharp for only being 1080p.
My guy has never heard of laptops. They ship with 1080p displays, even with 1080p OLED displays because on a 15' display, that looks as sharp as a desktop using 1440p. And you don't factor in the type of display in use. Only resolution. An oled 15' 1080p display will look better than a 24-27' 1440p IPS matte display due to its better contrast, colors, etc. Glossy IPS displays will also look better than their matte counterparts unless we talk about actually professional quality matte displays which tend to be closer to glossy ones anyways. And mate, travel the world. Not just see the sights but actually chit chat with the locals, browse their markets, etc. You'll see $300 in countries with a fraction the purchasing power of developed countries will feel like $600 to even $1000. Some of these countries are just going through crazy inflation. Even in developed countries much of thats true. And thats IF the display is $300 in those countries. It could be higher due to taxes.
first game looks better on stairs, u will see that will dlss , stairs looks better, more stable but he might use taa, game prob have dlaa, with that it might be better native by a margin
The problem is that most of users are already upscaling games from sub 1080p to 1080p with DLSS or FSR. In my case, my RTX 2060 Super need DLSS to hit 60fps with medium settings (and maybe high) in most modern games ! Also there's some very rare case like Helldivers where there is no upscaler and you just struggle to run the game at 1080p (the game does not look that good on my computer and i needed to lower the resolution with their tools)
I upgraded a few years back to a 1440p 165hz refresh rate monitor from a 1080p and to my mind was like a night & day difference. Although a VA panel was all I could afford at the time...
Basic IPS 170hz 1440p panels are only around $220 or slightly above it on NewEgg these days, during sale events. I'm refusing OLED until the price drops considerably 😂
If you don't know what display technology you're looking at, and you're physically sitting in the display's sweet spot, can you honestly tell the difference between VA and IPS?
@@tommyg3031 Yeah, these days bro not in 2022 or 2021 when I bought va165hz 1440p it was the cheapest in my region for 280 on sale from 330! IPS was 400 minimum
I play on 1080p plasma and use DLDSR 1620p combined with DLSS quality or balanced, which results in perfectly sharp, stable and smooth image while getting me 60fps everywhere. Really happy with this setup, I do not plan to change my screen anytime soon.
Running native is better for most. Not every game supports dlss and sometimes when it does it does poor job at it or as you have given example with cyberpunk, would provide you with much worse experience than 1080p native. Also, what is the point of video like this anyway? Giving people bad advice to go and buy higher ress monitor and rely on dlss to get same performance? In what world is that a good advice? It sounds like nvidia representative talking... "forget native boys, just use DLSS" People will move to 1440p 16:9 when RTX x050/x060 or Radeon RX x600/x600 XT will be able to support it 60-80fps on native 1440p, until then majority will stick to the monitors they've been using for quite a while and giving them advice of getting 1440p display while waiting for new GPUS is horrible advice. Reasons being a) next gen GPU's might be even bigger pile of shit than this generation was from both parties. b) you can just buy display alongside your GPU, which would be a better solution cause you know better what the overall cost will be and on top of that, every display technology over time gets better and cheaper. So yeah, horrible advice, though to be fair, i think this is the first time you gave bad advice.
Well, this video convinced me to get a new monitor. A few months ago, after seeing what 1440p looked like, I was already considering an upgrade. Since then, 1080p just isn't enough anymore.
1080p with upscalling IMO is not good, even on dlss. 1440p with upscalling at quality imo is 1080p with a sharpening effect, 4K with upscalling quality is imo 1440p with sharpening effect as well. I preffer the real native resto with a sharpening post process, obviously performance suffers.
@@blondegirl7240 Yes I have and I have seen a diference. Thou experience may differ to others, I also don't claim doing heavy testing. And perhaps monitor quality and eyesight quality, could have a effect on this as well who knows. Btw I hope my original reply shows I'm talking of a opinion, not claiming hard facts or saying my is the general experience.
I checked in on this video comment section and noticed a lot of people thought the original thumbnail (which I've now updated) was calling them "dumb" for having bought a 1080p monitor in the past. This was never the message I intended to convey. I understand that most people on a 1080p display purchased it a few years ago when it probably did make a lot more sense than a 1440p monitor. The goal of this video is to revisit that value proposition in 2024 based on improvements to 1440p monitor pricing and technology as well as better and more widespread upscaling technology allowing weaker GPUs to drive a 1440p display at the same framerates as a 1080p display while achieving better than 1080p image quality.
@@danielowentech the point still stands that upscaling to 1440p from 960p is not a replacement for 1080p native. Upscaling looks blurrier.
@@JamesRussoMillas Stupid 1440p dlss looks better than 1080p native.. Don't act oversmart
I'm sorry I ever commented, Daniel...I hardly ever do. .l am a disabled senior on a fixed income and went budget everything with AMD...and FSR still sucks. My first gaming computer was a 486 with a 3dfx voodoo card ...so I have been around for awhile. I really enjoy your content.
@@JamesRussoMillas Nope, you should see it with your own eyes.
@@Laohu7777 The new FSR got way better, yet, ofen times is not supported yet. I would advice you to try out Reshade, you can counter many disadvantages of upscaling with it and you can push the graphic fidelity/atmosphere quite a bit. Used to playing on 1440p triples with a GTX 970 upscaled from 720p or even less. If there's a will, there's a way. Some fellows looking at my upscaling + Reshade don't believe me it's 720p on 1440p screens.
A 486 with a voodoo? That's some CPU bottleneck action, yet those GPUs were quite CPU-independent back then, right?
Yeah, we ain't playing at 1080p native, we're already using DLSS to be able to run games lol
absolute cap
yeah with how most triple aaa slop runs now even high end gpus cant reach 1080p 60+ fps already lol
this should be higher up
@@mrman6035 which ones? Cyberpunk with Path Tracing? Show me some games that can't get 1080/60 on a 4080 or 4090 in normal rasterization
@electricant55 how? Most people just turn on dlss anyways because "more fps" so yeah, most people aren't running 1080p native and wouldn't even keep it that way if it meant less fps
I'm not dumb, just poor.
Man, you need to learn to save money. I can assure you that very few people buying 4090 don't feel the impact on their finances. You can get GREAT 2nd hand monitors 1440p for under $200. For example Gigabyte M27Q V2 or LG 27GP850-B were some of the go-to monitors just a couple of years ago someone paid 500+ for and now they're hitting the market. Facebook marketplace and similar local markets are literal goldmine for gems like this.
I have played 4K with God Rays in Far Cry 4 using a $300 Gtx 970.
That was 10 years ago via DSR. With the help of the internet, you still had 10 years of being dumb. It's inexcusable.
Well not everyone can afford a gaming hardware to run game so 1080p.... With gaming requirements been bumped up for no reason whatsoever when a 4gb ram, 3gb vram pc is running cyberpunk in 40fps in city is crazy...
What we need is optimisation..
If gane developers do it, we can buy 1080p of 4k screen.. Even with fsr, dlss, not every game is good at it..
Lot more detail 2:09.. Majority of times, it's not visible and you play games for entertainment not for detail...
@@jooyichen So you had a mid-high end GPU 10 years ago and played a 2014 game at 4K...? who cares about that? are you implying AAA 2024 games are as hard to run as FC4? lmao
A 4070 can't even get 60fps on some games at Ultra settings and native 4K, most people can't afford it to begin with, your $300 970 would cost around $400 due to inflation, a 4070 costs around $540 today, then you also have to add in the rest of the system, most people can't afford that and with a weaker GPU like the 6750XT or the overpriced 4060 you aren't going to have a good experience at 4K even with DLSS/FSR
@@Weroleytor The few good new games doesn't justifiy a $1.000+ GPU for me. I'm happy with my $300 RX 6700XT. It depends on what games you are playing. I mostly play games that are 10 years old or older, racing games and shooters. I'm using triple screens, with some settings and Reshade I could pull off a playable framerate with this card @ 4K, yet, I only own 1440p monitors, I'm completely fine with. Please don't compare an RX 6750xt to a 4060, the 4060 is way weaker in rasterization and way overpriced. I'm with you, that both cards are not good for 4k, but Reshade can work wonders...
1080p: *exists*
TAA: I'm about to end this man's whole career.
1080 is good for not graphic focus gamers, or high hz gamers etc
I hate TAA. It makes Cyberpunk look like shit and you cant even turn it off. 2008 GTA IV looks sharper than Cyberpunk
@@iikatinggangsengii2471 bro, the f you are on about? 720p dlss ultra performance is king ,period
@@iikatinggangsengii2471high hz? 1080 is the best resolution if you want high refresh rate experience... Cause it still looks good and doesn't impact performance
tell me youre broke without saying it lol
Not everyone on planet Earth lives in a 1st world country.
1440p gaming is still expensive in most 3rd world countries. The average wage here in the Philippines is $300 a month. PC parts are 30-50% more expensive here compared to the USA. 1050ti and RX570s are still in demand here.
Coming from India, yes things are expensive in hardware but software is cheaper much cheaper for us and although old GPUs are in demand, they are terrible value. You're still getting the best from 6600 and 3060 or A750.
@@DragonOfTheMortalKombat My guy. In India you can buy a gigabyte g5 with an rtx 4050 75w for ~65k, if not cheaper with sales + schemes. Thats ~$750 which is pretty good for rx6600 levels of performance. Heck, you could even buy an rtx 2050 or 3050 laptop for ~45-55k which is ~$540 to $650. Thats around rx570 to gtx 1660 levels of performance.
It's expensive even in the 2nd world due to taxes and retailer price gouging.
the thing is, daniel came from a place of abundance. when we have a 1080p that still works just fone, ain't no way in hell we'd be getting a 1440p when that money can be used for better PC hardware. and a bunch of fools down here could never even imagine someone think spending 200-300 USD to replace a perfectly fine 1080p monitors is biscuits.
the video's thumbnail says 1080 is dumb, he opened out by pointing out 1080p users having a larger margin in Steam survey. Idk about you but that is straight up insulting, not even throwing shades. It don't matter what scientifique results he conducted says, it's not about telling ppl to buy 1440p monitors, it's about being blatantly ignorant and dismissive while making his point.
I'm sorry but if he wanted to provide a case study then there's no need to call out 1080p user like they live in the part. I reason is as straight forward as it gets, mfs just can't afford a new one when the current is fine.
@@donloder1 1080p hasn't been "fine" for 10 years now
upscaling is kind of made for 1440p and up not for 1080p it just shows that upscaling is not considered good enough, while in reality it is far better at 4k and 1440p then it is at 1080p
One positive thing about 4K is, when I had a 1440p monitor, I often chose not to use DLSS/FSR. It was ok sometimes, but not in all games. With 4K native monitor, running games at DLSS/FSR is ok, where native resolution is like 1440p...
DLAA is the star of the show for 1080p and I also used custom DLSS with DLSSTweaks to get UltraQuality (0.77) when I needed a boost on my 2060 super. It was enough to get me over 60 in the tougher to run games and looked very similar to native. UltraQuality is for 1080p
@@TechTusiast is that with AA on or AA disabled? cause 4K while your playing the game I doubt you can actually see the jaggies anyways.
I mean all these reviews always have to zoom in to 200x to 300x just show you jaggies.
I'm just thinking about how close some people are to these massive 43"+ 4K screens while playing & still complain. It's like they're 10 inches away from the screen or less. Just imagine that in your head.... LOL
yeah, upscaling to 4k looks really good, because you're working with a much higher source resolution. upscaling to 1080p or even 1440p looks noticeably worse.
@@itsaUSBline True. It's def the way to go, upscaling is the future, getting better and better.
And yeah, ofc it's better with more native res. With my old GTX 970 I sometimes rendered half of 1440p on triple screens and upscaled it. Some older games would run @ 60+fps and looked okay, but ofc it was noticable. Tell you what, Reshade can work wonders! You can make e.g. 720p look amazing if you know how.
This is definitely for a 1st-world audience. $300 in the 3rd world feeds a person for 2-3 months. Possibly longer if you spend wisely and cook at home. I bet $300 would barely last 1 month for an American's feed. Huge salary differences and costs of living. Wallet bottle-necking is also not just a meme.
I pay around 100-150 per month on food in Germany.
If I really wanted to, I could push that below 100, but then I would never treat myself to something nice.
should you really be playing the latest games, if your life is so difficult?
@@peterfischer2039 Well, i pay around 110€ for 10 days, just for me. But i cannot eat "normal" food, due to my condition. Than, i pay 200€ for my son food, that will give him, 15 to 20 days. This is in Portugal!
Third worlders spending $25/week on food aren't watching videos about how to get to 1440p resolution.
@@peterfischer2039 Good Lord man! You must live off scraps. My mom in Holland has to spend about 350 euro monthly per person. About $380.
You're missing one crucial detail here. Most people aren't playing at 1080p by choice, but through necessity. Spending 300$ on a Display for someone who's still gaming on a 5-10 year old GPU and struggles to maintain 60FPS on Low/Medium settings makes absolutely zero sense. Especially when the difference in visual quality, as shown by your comparison, is minimal and barely perceivable unless you're looking for it.
You can add Sharpness to your 1080p display through things like ReShade and achieve a similar visual effect to DLSS, so personally I would recommend those free alternatives instead of wasting 200-300$ on a Display when that money could be put towards buying a new GPU/CPU, which are the far more important components for gaming since it doesn't matter how good your Display looks if you can't maintain a steady framerate.
I agree with the general sentiment, but come on. ReShade sharpness cannot "achieve a similar visual effect to DLSS".
When it comes to what DLSS is doing to that image, I honestly think sharpness is one of the smaller issues. There is more detail, more temporal stability, and, lastly, yes, a little bit extra sharpness.
If you tweak your ReShade Sharpness settings properly, it'll make your games look like they're running on higher than actual settings since the Sharpness will add a "fake detail" effect to your image.
Obviously it can't match DLSS in terms of quality, but it's a "good enough" FREE alternative to buying a new Display.
I know because I've been using this trick on my last GPU, the GTX 960 and a 900p Display, and I would've been mad to buy a new Display, just so that I could upscale the image from 1440p, instead of getting a new GPU.
I've bought two 1440p monitors for under $200. If you're in the US, it shouldn't be that hard to find a decent deal on a 2k monitor
That's not true, like at all. A lot of people may be playing at 1080p because they need to, but not all of them. I got my 1440p monitor for $130 secondhand with a year warranty. Most GPUs are capable at playing e sports games, 1440p native, let alone DLSS, and even AAA games from the past decade will do the same. Both at acceptable frame rates.
@@verde5738 Okay well, that's you, but anyone who isn't blind will tell you that you are gaming on one of the worst combinations in the history of the world (although your performance is probably okay at that resolution) when it comes to visual fidelity, and that unless you live in a Third World country where that is your only choice, you have absolutely no excuse for not saving up little by little, to get yourself something like a 1080ti and afterward a used 1440p monitor like I did which cost me $130.
2030 Daniel be like: 4k is dumb, upscaled 2880p looks better.
but 2880p is higher than 4k(2160), its gonna be 5k 5120 x 2880)
I played Doom 3 upscaled from, as far as I remember, 2880x1800 (or maybe 2800x1800) via LosslessScaling app, using FSR1, which is nowhere near the DLSS/XeSS/FSR3 level of quality. And it looked decent on a 4K monitor. You would need to inspect the picture really hard to find the minute imperfections. Now imagine 4K upscaled to 5Kor even 8K using actual advanced algorithms.
@@VanyaYlianov He's implying that people will have 6k or 8k monitors by then, and that Owen will be recommending that people upscale from 2880p with them, but I think he's joking.
Somehow I don't think that resolutions above 4k are going to be popular by 2030, or even years afterward, as you are definitely getting diminishing returns in subjective image quality at 6k or 8k. The 4k resolution standard could last for a very, very long time. Improvements in other aspects of image quality are likely to matter more, like just having ever improving and ever more affordable displays which can do high-contrast per pixel (such as with Oled displays), and high color accuracy.
How dare you be poor and not buy expensive stuff like me.
@@syncmonism I definitely think resolution is going to remain fairly constant while color accuracy, response times, and contrast make the major innovations. Higher resolution displays will still have their use in professional work where you are working with 5k or 8k source footage, but for media consumption and regular use, even 4k is fairly overkill unless you have a larger monitor or are using a large TV as your display, especially considering its large performance cost compared to native 1440p with only a very minor quality uplift that is partially negated by using DLAA on the 1440p monitor anyways.
Majority of PC Gamer's don't live in a first world country. When a new "cheap" 300$ monitor is more than a month's salary you start to value hardware differently. One thing I can recommend for those people is to activate DSR Scaling (or Radeon Super Resolution). Allowing games to run above native resolution. Then use DLSS- or FSR Quality. The card will super sample and downscale the graphics to your native resolution. Improving image quality drastically. This works for older cards like the 1050Ti and RX580 using FSR2+ as well (although it can be a hit or miss depending on how much "shimmering" the implementation has)
Thumbs up for the general tip, but I do quite agree FSR2+ artifacts can often be worse than the extra detail reconstructed.
The three largest countries (India, China, US) are ~40% of world pop. China gets its own special GPUs like the RTX Dragon or AMD's Golden Rabbit Edition. Is China a developing country or a developed country?
@@sammiller6631 In between.
Majority of pc gamers live in a first world country.....
what's the point of watching tech videos at all then? 99% of what is shown on these channels doesn't apply to you if 300$ is your month's salary anyway.
Remember using just basic anti-aliasing back in the early/ mid 2000s? You could run a game at 16xAA or 8x AA , the visual quality of the game was Mega sharp and clear, no jaggies period .. no blur whatsoever. Not like modern AA, which basically blurs the crap out of your image to varying degrees. there is still jaggies on everything if you look through the blur.
TAA is eye cancer. That's why I hate DLSS and FSR too, at least at 1080p.
Native or bust, and preferably with other AA method than TAA.
@alargecorgi2199 Oh, i understand and completely agree with you. I was just reminiscing on the good ole days.
@alargecorgi2199 No, they moved on post process AA since MSAA doesn't work well with deferred rendering. Big problem is that in almost every new game you can't turn off that f*** post process AA. And it looks crap, blurry mess. Usually DLSS and even FSR looks way better, in that aspect it's true that 'DLSS is better than native'. But in reality all 3 of them looks way worse than native without AA. Ofc with AA turned off the game looks pixelated, but just let ppl decide what they prefer. Me the latter.
@alargecorgi2199 Based on Steamsurvey, 4k is not even at 4% while 1080p at 57%. It will take a long time for 4k to be mainstream. Unfortunately, since the best AA is the biggest PPI when you cant see any pixel on the display. 27" 4k probably close to it, yet to see this combination.
basic anti-aliasing in the early 2000s was crap. you're left with native AA which kills GPU and QuinCunx AA from NVIDIA which was literal crap. GPU HP wasn't that great during the geforce/geforce2 times.
I think Daniel has gotten used to having a teachers salary on top of some YT pocket money. The reason people are running 1080p is because wages haven't kept up with inflation, so they're already running upscaling on medium settings at 1080p. And if they manage to scrounge up $300 for a PC upgrade they'll get a 6700XT that can do 1080p High/Ultra Native. Getting a $300 1440p monitor, instead, and going to DLSS/FSR Performance on medium settings does not feel like "getting something".
True, what he said is only true for some people, I've had low-end PCs for most of my life, so I'd have used FSR performance even at 1080p, but I'll probably upgrade to a laptop with a good AMD iGPU or one with the 4060.
no i watch them too, if needed
Well Daniel, if you’re offering to buy me a 1440p monitor then.. I won’t say no to that 😅
True, but unfortunately the only game i can run at 1440p with the hardware I have is Banana simulator on Steam 😅.
i dont own anyone lol
They are cheap af 1440p 165hz its monitors are like 130
@@Cooler-wh4rg only downside is you will get trash hdr if you care about it
@@IXFlipyap yeah, or it's not ips
Still rocking a 1600X900 monitor since 7 years.
I just upgraded to that exact res from 1366 768. Everything is so sharp and detailed.
people just don't know how 900p save alot of people with Intel HD Graphics back in 2010s...
Playing Mass Effect 2, Dishonored, Far Cry 3 on Intel igpu was a godsend for people with office-use only PC.
@@nickochioneantony9288True, but theses monitors are still good to this day if you have a low budget and don't want to upgrade the graphics card as much as the average 1440p gamer.
if you can afford playing at 1080p, definitely upgrade. the resolution upgrade is massive
that's my resolution from 2007 and i got laughed at toms hardware lmao at that time. you gotta upgrade bro.
You ask why I run 1080p and not 1440p monitor, in my country the cheapest 1440p monitor is 300 dollars locally. If I buy the cheapest 1440p monitor on amazon its 180 dollars + 235 dollar(import fee). which put it at 415 dollars.
maybe you should vote to reduce tarrifs.
I mean alot of tech tubers (including Daniel) makes videos with a Western market audience in mind
i don't believe you. cap 🧢
Brazil?
@@japanesesamurai4945 Here in Brazil it's like this, can confirm
Daniel has the point, meanwhile it also involves several concerns for some of the users here:
1) As you mentioned, it will be a bit different case if the users are using AMD GPU which is using FSR, not DLSS.
2) It is much cheaper in US and certain 1st world countries but different story to 2nd or 3rd world countries.
The price and the living standard is day and night difference😅
3) Many users said that 1080p display is blur or pixelated.
I believe most of them are comparing from a 27" 1080p rather than a 23.8" 1080p display, the latter looks sharp.
3) A lot of 1440p options available in YT nowadays but VAST majority of video resolution is still 1080p maximum.
I think this one is depending on personal acceptance level in term of the sharpness of the image quality.
As well as watching a 1080p content outside of YT or any online platform.
I saw some users mentioned that watching 1080p content on YT is different than watching a 1080p downloaded content, the latter is better if not mistaken?👀
I have a 1080p 21.5 inch display from the year of 2012. and it looks as sharp as 27" 1440p.
@@dingickso4098 It already looks sharp on a 23.8" 1080p display, of course it will for 21.5" 😄 However, I know a lot of gamers love 1440p too due to the PPI is higher and bigger screen 😀
Yes it is better, but not for poor peasants like us
XP
Im a poor peasant
My son runs a 6750 XT, 5600x, 16GB CL14 3200Mhz, on a Samsung 60hz 24”, streams on twitch and he is perfectly fine with it.
I have a 4080 Super with a 7800X3D, 64GB CL 6000Mhz on a 240hz 1440p panel and thinking off buying OLED.
Why? Because I’m always on RUclips seeing reviews and wanting the best. Otherwise I would possibly would be using the same rig as him.
They are dirt cheap nowadays
@@TheFloRidah Man buy yourself a XG27AQDMG and give your current monitor to your son. He is missing so much with a 60hz display.
You can say the same about 4K. All you need is a 2K capable card and you can play on 4K DLSS Quality which looks amazing.
That's what I do on my 3080 & to me it looks AMAZING 😱😱😱 I have a 42 inch LG C3 I bought a few months ago & once you can get 4K without any DLSS or FG I'll upgrade my GPU 🤦🏿🤷🏿
@@myquietreviews yes me too. I also have a 3080 and you can easily play on 4K with some adjustments and DLSS Quality.
and you would be right, 4k is the only resolution that makes sense these days
Just can get a bit more tricky because of VRAM constraints. Some games from from 8GB VRAM usage on 1080p high to like 10GB when you go to 1440p+Upscaling. RT&FG add another 2GB VRAM usage on top of that. At 4k output this will be even more, so on 3000 cards you may have to drop to lower textures because of that or get texture popping or stutters in unoptimized titles, or crashes in terrible releases).
so my 1060 is 1080p capable. that also makes it 2k capable and consequently also 4k capable
Not everyone can afford to replace a 1080 monitor that works fine already.
No one hit you on the hand to force you to buy something. This is just an idea for anyone who is thinking of getting a screen in the future
No shit sherlock he just makes a point
1440p displays are dirt cheap
@@phm04 200$ is very cheap
No, but it is becoming accessible to more people. I would go browse Amazon and such and see what you find.
This works even if you're actually on a 1080p monitor as well, render at 1440p DLLS Q or B, then downscale back to 1080p, way less aliasing, more detail and overall better image quality, about the same performance.
Is there something like this for AMD GPUs?
@@momensaber1189 rendering at higher than native resolution? you just do it, has nothing to do with what graphics card you have.
Maybe you're talking about the DLSS part of it, to make the rendering less taxing, FSR would be the AMD version of it, which is an upscaler that works on any modern gpu, GeForce, Radeon or Arc.
@@MaxIronsThird I don't think amd has something cool such as dlls q or b. We have something called vsr and I tried it and honestly it looked weird.. 😞 not the result I wanted
@@momensaber1189 It's FSR, and you're right. The biggest win of supersampling an upscaled image is using the better upscaling algorithm for better image stability. FSR is great at reconstructing detail, but it fails horribly at image stability, so you'll likely get a shaper, but artefact ridden image. Honestly I'd just add a sharpening filter at that point.
@@iurigrang I tried adding it through amd adrenaline and honestly it doesn't help much. But well, better than nothing I'd say. Also fsr has lots of shimmering in image and sometimes ghosting too
1080p will continue to be the most common resolution and there are reasons for it. Some of which you have stated in this video.
The main detriment to image quality in today's games is *temporal anti-aliasing and upscaling*
It significantly blurs the image. Especially *in motion*
If you disable temporal AA at basically *any* resolution, then you will get a significant boost in clarity. It is because of this, that 1080p might seem bad to you. 1080p without temporal AA butchering it is still very much fine.
It's not the resolution that's the issue. It's the anti-aliasing.
Finaly someone who understand 🙏
@@LeConseilDuRap The 1080p native footage that he was showing here was practically sub-900p in terms of motion clarity. If he would've shown native 1080p *without* any kind of temporal AA or upscaling nonsense, then he would've actually gotten true 1080p clarity.
TAA has obliterated image quality immensely in moderns games, despite what people think sharpening doesn't fix it at all. If you want a closer to native image whilst using TAA you need to be running the game at 150% or 200% resolution scale, but even then depending how terrible the particular implementation is it's still going to look shit as soon as you move at all.
@@videogaminbiker889 Precisely.
1080p will be surpassed, upscalars will make it easy for more GPUs to run higher resolutions. Monitors and display prices are going down. Your TAA statement doesn't factor in the fact that most modern games have high levels of details that are too much for the no. of pixels on your monitor. Games with Mesh shaders, nanite etc will require you to have higher resolutions for distant objects not to become a pixelated mess
Due to the cost, I want my gpu to be relevant for as long as possible. Why would I artificially shorten its usable life span intentionally. Besides gpu's and monitors capable of running 1440p costs more than those capable of 1080p gaming.
You're forgetting not everyone are living in wealthy countries and can afford 1440p screens, not to mention fast and even more expensive GPU to support it. 1080p will stay dominating resolution for very long time.
even older GPUs have better efficiency at Mpix/s render output at higher resolution, so you may be wrong... cheap 1440p is a thing for sure, but there's another middle ground option. Downscaling... You render the image at higher resolution and you get much better image quality with almost no FPS cost if your game is already bottlenecked...
here cheapest 1440p is some tesla 6ms 100hz ips 27inch for 162 euro, like half to 1 year ago cheapest was 256 euro 144hz, now 222, for 162 euro 60 or 75 hz is best u could get before at that price, they will prob get cheaper as oled get more popular / common
@@pasha715 100hz monitor is shit for gaming
@@Azccccc This statement is SOOOOOO wrong!!!!! The only games that will be seriously impacted by 100hz refresh are competitive shooters. ANY and I repeat ANY other game running at 90hz or above will be very smooth and see diminishing returns with higher refresh rates.
@@Azccccc like pdmerritt said, if u are competetive player, 144hz or more is better but in my case im playing single player games more, 100hz is good enough for me, im atm at 60
Why no one is talking about "motion" blur introduced by upscalling ? (or by forced TAA)... I hate it
I don't have money to upgrade my old pc man, how can i upgrade my monitor.
Sell plasma to upgrade your old pc
just donwload rtx 4090 its easy
The problem of 1440p monitors is that you are going to see native 1440p at some point, and then you will notice how trash is 1080p and all upscaling including dlss... then you have to have a better GPU for the same 1080p performance... there is no fix there... if you can keep yourself out of 1440p and 4k, it will save you money if you don't know better...
Ignorance is bliss eh
Yes. No one seems to consider the powerful GPUs you need.
No, I play on a 27in 1440p monitor and I basically have to pixel-peep with my eye two inches away from the screen to tell the difference in quality from native and DLSS Quality.
From a comfortable playing distance which is at least an arm's length or more. I cannot tell a difference.
@@Dexion845 Not all people are as blind as you...
@@Games_and_Tech lol spare me the ad-hominem do your research the majority of people and even youtube creators themselves hold the same position.
Most of the world isn’t as privileged as the US in terms of average buying power. I’m actually kind of surprised as high a percentage of gamers world-wide are even on that high of a resolution, to be honest. It’s good to be aware and appreciative to be so fortunate.
Fortune doesn't come on its own.
And this fact is actually beneficial from an environmental perspective. Encouraging people to drop their perfectly capable and well-working hardware that they enjoy to switch to a bit better image quality is so wasteful and american.
@@liljom Wasteful? Can you eat hardware?
@@liljom This "wastefulness" leads to an affordable second hand market....more and more people can't see the bigger picture. If everyone holds onto his stuff, fewer people could afford it as a used product....
@@bjornna7767the fact that you couldn’t fathom that wasting money is a concept really shows you’re from the great USA
Not entirely fair, because its really not the actual monitor itself that's the problem, just how games use post processing that don't look good at that resolution level. If you use dsr or dldsr on a 1080p screen it looks amazing.
Not using DLDSR in the comparison is criminally missing a crucial aspect of 1080p gaming. DLDSR 1.78x + DLSS P is pretty much the sweetspot of good performance and still good image. If you can go up to DLSS Q or DLDSR 2.25x that's great but that's on a game by game basis. Buying a 1440p to be forced to play at best DLSS P 1440p is a waste. Especially when you really can't go lower than that. At least with 1080p if performance is really bad you can just do regular non-dldsr dlss.
@@albert2006xp yeah, I've been using 2880x1620 dldsr with DLSS quality to basically get DLAA+ on my 4070. Runs great and looks amazing on my 24 inch 1080p monitor. For more intensive games I can just drop DLSS to lower settings and it still looks quite good
1440p 165Hz monitors are available for around $150 or even less where I live, so it makes very little sense to buy 1080p. It’s depending on where you live obviously, but it’s crazy that in China you could find them for around $110
All I can say is as an Southeast Asian, this video really only applies to those living in 1st world countries, especially North America and maybe Europe where 1440p monitors are more abundant, accessible, and therefore affordable. This is not the case for hundreds of 3rd world countries where 1080p or even 720p and 768p are still used in homes and businesses! Affording 1440p capable hardware is also difficult due to lower salaries in 3rd world countries. I don't think people like us will get a taste of 1440p until probably the late 2020s or even 2030s
I have a 4k 65-inch TV and a 22-inch 1080p monitor. Just by using DLDRS 1620p and then using DLSS gives really improved image quality and it's not that much different image quality-wise when I compare it to my 4k TV running at native. You can see some shimmering when you zoom in compared to running at native 4k but doesn't make much difference when playing and not zooming to find flaws.
Even with pc components, my budget here will get me a tier higher if im in the US 😂 tax and price gouging here are absurd 😂
"maybe europe"...
I'll have you know that our minimum wage is on average higher than in the US and health insurance is included.
Don't lump us together with those barbarians!
It seems that this seller is speaking on behalf of Amazon to get you to buy more stuff when you do not need it. He is an Amazon operative. So in reality, the difference between 1080 and 1440p is minimal and Ghost of Tsushima is gorgeous on 1080p. Don't waste your money to make Amazon operatives richer
When I got my 1440p 144hz monitor last year for my 6700XT, I was blown away by how clear everything looked. It blows 1080p out of water. Even old games like Doom and Minecraft looked more sharp and clear. And of course, modern games looked better too, like Doom Eternal and Spider Man Remastered. I never was able to go back to 1080p after that. My games finally looked like I thought they were going look like, the colors too on the monitor were way better, a lot more vibrant. I don’t really use upscaling that much, I mainly play at native, as most of the games I play are optimized. I would use it though, if I needed a performance boost.
The comparison between 1440p and 18080 is dramatic. Going to 1440 you can lower most settings and it will still look much better than 1080 in most ways
Agree! I upgraded from a 24" 1080p monitor to an MSI 27" 1440P/180hz/IPS/HDR and it was less than £180 I was surprised how good 1080p looked on it, even without special up-scaling settings. That's good news if your GPU budget is limited to a 8gb card, like the 4060 or 7600.
Called PPI. A 24 1080p monitor will look the same as a 27 1440p because the PPi is the same.
Ok but what about amd owners with fsr? Lol
lossless scaling is a good workaround if the game still don't support the newest FSR scaling
This "trick" also works with a 1080p monitor. To do this, simply activate DLDSR in the control panel, which allows you to set the game to 1440p. Together with DLSS
Quality, you still get a much better result than 1080p natively with roughly the
same performance. A 1440p
monitor is therefore not necessary.
It's funny to me because the only time I tried this was with cyberpunk and the upscaled result was terrible so I just assumed it's the case in every game.
I think there was a point early on I didn't like the upscaling in Cyberpunk. They changed it in some version and it looked better. Than after enough time and trial and error, I settled on a 3.7.x version of DLSS that I place into every game and looks great to me all around, so no it's not every game and you can manually put in the version you like best. But yeah, there was a time when I remember Cyberpunk looking FSR clay like on an older version and I couldn't understand how anyone would ever say it looks better than native. I always been on a 50-55 inch 4k OLED though so if theres an imperfection, you'll see it.
apparently DLSS Q at 1440p and above looks better than native in Cyberpunk so I'm not sure what you're about, even FSR is decent enough to make the +40% FPS jump worth it
@@g2fiora yea but it wasn't the case when it launched. this was definitely upgraded later in the lifecycle, because I remember the same thing and it's still the case for tons of games. DLSS isn't something that magically works, it's the actual gamedev and nividia driver updates making it work.
And yes, today, DLSS on cyberpunk looks incredibly good, but earlier on it was a mess of washed pixels and a very blurry look.
@@g2fiora Then you might wanna get glasses and hearing aid because the quality is trash to anyone who can see well, and it's also said 2 minutes into the video if you could hear well.
@@g2fioraWhen DLSS released in CP77 it was AWFUL
It’s all about pixel density, 1080p on 24 inch looks just as good as 1440p on 27 inch. Logically 1440p looks better on 27 inch or more. Just pick the right display size according to the resolution. 24 inch 1080p, 1440p 27 inch, 4K 32 inch, is everything the same …
And I feel like native 1080 on a 24 inch looks better than 1440p (dlss) on a 27 inch
I've been using DLDSR at 2880x1620 on a 1080p 24 inch display and the quality difference is pretty noticeable sometimes I turn on dlss and it pretty much runs the same as 1080p but looks way better even on a small display.
Same 💯
If you are used to TN panels stay away from VA panels. The pixel response rate is less so when objects are moving across a dimmed background or any high contrast scenario you can see streaks or motion blur. Even a high refresh rate cant fix that VA technology. It's like a ripoff that companies made newer tech worse just cause it was probably cheaper for them to manufacture. Also HDR is not worth it at 600+ and it will just add more overhead on the processing overall.
Does that increase vram usage? since 8gb is what most people have and already on the limit for some games 🤔
I just (reluctantly) jumped to 1440p a couple of months ago and so far, my VRAM usage across AAA games on the RX 6600 8GB have been largely similar. I think that as long as you keep the same settings as you did in 1080p, VRAM won't be that much of an issue, if at all.
Upgraded to 1440p very recently, I'm using a 3060 ti FE and haven't noticed a huge jump.
It mostly the same
Upscaling actually reduces VRAM usage a bit since you're rendering from 960p instead of 1080p. Frame Generation and RTX will increase it tho.
@@BenyaminLorit yeah I saw some benchmarks on BF2042 on a 4060 ti 8gb and in 1080p it used 5.5gb and on 1440p 6gb, quite a small difference. Especially if you consider that DLSS reduces preformance the difference is very small.
@@KumoiwaUpscaling still requires VRAM to run, and the difference between 960p and 1080p is small enough that I suspect it would be fully covered by DLSS. It shouldn't be an issue in most games, but it can push your game into the struggle zone if you were previously skirting just below it.
I am not sure how fair the comparison is. A decent 1080p monitor is usually 24inches compared to a standard 1440p monitor which is about 27inch. What you are comparing is 1080p on a 1440p monitor. So you have a far lower pixel density.
I would like for you to compare to image quality of a 24inch 1080p monitor NATIVE and a 27inch 1440p monitor with DLSS.
I mostly stayed on 1080p because I couldn't afford a 1440p high refresh rate monitor for esports games. I found a great deal on a 1080p 280hz monitor but I really want to try 1440p one day especially because I have a 5600X with a 6800XT and that gpu is getting very under-utilized.
The 6800 XT is underutilized mainly due to your CPU. ;)
A 1440p IPS would be a sweet upgrade with that setup.
@@MarcinTrybushe already made that point in his comment lol
In your case, you should get a bigger monitor. But many people don't get bigger monitor because they will need high end GPU like yours to support gaming in those. And such GPUs cost near 900-1000 dollars in many countries.
@@intermilan9731 well yeah I need 1440p. 4k high refresh rate is too expensive.
I'm still on 1080p. If one day I decide to go up I'd get 4k. Because I heard 1080p movies look really bad on a 1440p. I'm not only gaming on the PC I also like to watch movies and series.
First of all, 1080p, 2K, 4K movies look really great at 1440p resolution. Second, at 4:46 Daniel's recommending to buy an HDR 1000 mini LED monitor. With proper HDR 1000 support even 1080p HDR games, movies, youtube videos will look absolutely mind blowing on a 1440p monitor.
I can afford a 1440p monitor, but can't really justify it when my 1080p monitor works fine. Also, I'd rather upgrade all of the way to a 4K monitor, but want a faster GPU for that. So, I'm making do with my perfectly fine 1080p monitor until I can justify buying a new GPU and a 4K monitor at the same time.
Only reason I shot for1080p gaming is because I really don’t have that much time to game. Would I like a higher end rig with nice peripherals, yes but I spent 99$ on a 165hz 1080p monitor and that's way more within what I can justify. 1440p is nice and I would love to be there but can’t justify spending more than 800 for a setup when I realistically only play like 8ish hours a week.
Can you do this sort of video again with a 3060, 4060, and low end AMD options? Maybe even a 1060 or 1070?
1060/70 lack DLSS support and are getting pretty weak for even 1080p in a lot of newer games. The 3060 and 4060 are getting covered at 1080p and 1440p in upcoming videos (already available on early access for channel members).
@@danielowentech I don't see the 3060 and 4060 videos on early access, do you mean the 3060 vs 4060 video?
@@KingFeraligator yes, you can see how they perform at 1440p and 1080p in those videos, although I didn't put DLSS 1440p side by side with 1080p like I did in this video the same information is all there.
Tldr, spend more money for gpu
It's not dumb, upscaling sometimes looks blurry or has artifacts. And not everybody can use DLSS and not every games supports upscaling. Seriously.
Instead of buying a new monitor, use AMD VSR 1440p and Nvidia DLDSR 1440p on your 1080p panel then use FSR 3 or DLSS / XESS / TSR
Downscale Desktop (Windowed Borderess forced Games) + Upscale Game, still beats Native 1080p + TAA in majority of games.
AMD VSR / NVIDIA DLDSR is there for your 1080p panels, and KEEPS your Refresh rate active. So 1080p 120Hz can be 1440p/1620p/4K 120Hz
yep
I so do
That's what I do except on 1440p ultrawide 😂 But a better option would be just being able to disable TAA... too bad we're stuck with that garbage being forced everywhere nowadays...
No, vsr/DLDSR will never be as good as a new monitor. Due to these foolish advices people justify their bad monitor purchases. If you just want better anti aliasing use DLAA or FSR native AA mods.
@@DragonOfTheMortalKombat DLDSR is free, no new monitor required, also DLAA ia heavier than DLDSR B(even Q sometimes) and looks the same.
If they made high end 1440p 24in monitors, I'd get one. I play much better on 24in and just can't find the right place to put a 27 to make it comfortable.
Why 1080p DLAA only in Alan Wake 2 and not in other games? I suppose that DLAA is usually better than TAA.
It is an option in many games now and new releases gives you the option to use DLAA or TAA. But in my experience DLAA is a 10 fps reduction in performance so if you want to play in native and your card can run the game native TAA 60 fps, you will struggle with native DLAA. But the option is there in like, Cybepunk 2077, Starfield, Witcher 3 Next Gen if I remember well, Horizeon Forbidden West, Ghost of Tsushima etc., older not supported titles will not updated but new titles will get it as they get FSR Native as well.
Alan wake forces DLAA on Nvidia GPUs and FSR native on AMD GPUs if you don’t use upscaling
@@notbrokebrolt6281 Yes, but I don't know which tanks more the GPU. Because you can use FSR Native on an nVidia GPU too.
Would love to see a comparison between 1080p & 1440 with DLDSR feature enabled. The results would be interesting.
could you compare 1080p DLAA vs 1440p DLSS Quality? comparing with TAA doesn't feel fair when it comes to image quality
he literally did?
yep, TAA image quality sucks, it's like he specifically wanted 1080p to look worse by enabling TAA
@@TabalugaDragon yep comparisons around upscaling are pointless if you call TAA native. TAA is so far from native quality it's insane people think otherwise, even at 4k the difference is noticeable, quite sad really.
A lot of even modern games don't really have DLAA as an option, so I think the comparison with TAA is important, but I also did feel the lack of a comparison with DLAA was a problem.
@@electricant55 he didn't, he had a small clip of it but didn't talk about it at all.
I think there is also a need to mention those who are using a 24 inch display vs a 27 inch, you wont really see the tangible benefits of 1440 on a 24 inch display vs a 27 inch
Do we feel the same way about this with FSR on AMD Gpu's?
tbh for me it all depends on size of display, and fsr implementation, also res, i am using 1080p but in dying light 2 i didnt notice much of diff, ofc i could see a bit of shimering at distance, but that is to be expected, i have smaller display so thats why i guess, if u have huge tv and are close, even on dlss u can notice diff
no
I was wondering Daniel Owen's thoughts on FSR on 1440p vs 1080p. he primarily focused on 1080p being dumb in the context of nVidia DLSS upscaling to 1440p
viable only in 4k (jumping from 1440p) then fsr quality and boom, better image, same or better fps.
You can watch Hardware Unboxed's latest video on FSR 3.1. He "performance normalized" the results so the results are a bit skewed from a pure image quality perspective. My own conclusion is: FSR Quality at 1440p looks better than 1080p if the game's native TAA is bad (which it is in a lot of games. I often chose MSAA if it's available), and if the native TAA is good it's a toss between being sensitive to jaggies or being sensitive to shimmering. If jaggies bothers you more than shimmering go for FSR Quality at 1440p, if shimmering annoys you, stay on 1080p Native.
I am using 1080p 180HZ 24 inches fast IPS , and I have no intention to upgrade to 1440p. As I know , the next gen GPU is powerful enough to run AAA games 60 FPS in 4K . Not to mention that 1440p is not scale well for 1080p videos and apps , 4K is perfectly scale well . If I am going to upgrade I will upgrade to 4K , 100% not 1440p .
It's better to buy 1440p HDR 1000 mini LED monitor than 4K monitor with fake HDR 400 support.
You can say whatever you want about 1440p being a good resolution for you and/or anyone with a graphics card powerful enough for it, but calling 1080p dumb doesn't make any sense, it's the most used resolution because it's cost-effective and offers enough for the average users, which is why they're cheaper and found in many laptops and All-in-one PCs,making fun of users who are still using 1080p won't convince people to upgrade their monitor, especially if the hardware needed costs twice, it's a matter of preference, if you want to upgrade it's great, but don't hate on others who aren't on 1440p just because you've got a "premium" level because of a monitor with a higher resolution, correct me if I'm wrong.
He's not making fun of people with 1080p monitors, he's just informing you that just because you have a 1080p card you can utilize upscaling to get a higher fidelity with barely any performance cost (the whole point of upscaling). Buying a 1440p monitor for a low end pc is not a bad idea. As you said, 1080p is cost effective so the people running it most likely are on a nvidia 60 card or amd 600 card, why not get a higher quality image without also having to upgrade your gpu?
@@TinfoilTimmy If I was building a budget gaming PC now, I would get a 27" 1440p IPS monitor and pair it with a budget 8gb card like a 4060. 1080p still looks good on a 27" 1440p screen, so you can play the latest demanding games at 1080p without much image quality reduction, plus the 8gb VRAM limit becomes less of a concern. I realize now that when you build a gaming PC the monitor should be your first important consideration and the GPU 2nd.
@@tommyh4116 exactly!
@@tommyh4116 i actually use FSR (with a 1080p monitor mind you) on baldurs gate 3 because the anti aliasing options are so bad, now imagine how much better it would look upscale to 1440p instead of 1080
I recently switched to a 32" 1440p monitor just to see if the pixel density would bother me. I don't have a card that can run 4k natively so I decided to try this out. Surprisingly, I haven't missed the sharpness of a 27" 1440p as much as I thought I would. I do notice more lag when using upscaling, but I eventually adjusted to it. Now I'm wondering if I should just get a 4k OLED monitor now, since upscaling seems to be getting better rapidly.
most people dont have pcs strong enough to render 1440p in games even with upscaling lol
native 1440p is so easy, 6700, 3060 and you are good to go
its not just gamimg, bigger monitor, higher resolution is so much better for work, browsing, watching youtube whateva..
Steam charts says most people have RTX 3060
@@alfonso5177 People who have submitted the survey.....seriously, steam is not a representation of every PC.
I was still using a i7-6700 few month back with RX6600 no survey, now i got a new CPU etc Ryzen 5600 i finally got a survey sent to me, what im saying this? because in 3rd world country the cost of some computer parts is so expensive that many users are still using 2016 or much older systems, nowadays given AM4 is getting much cheaper, many are finally upgrading their whole setup.
Its also the reason why 1080p would still be dominant for years to come, alot of people don't have extra disposable income for their hobby and given gaming takes away your time alot most are satisfied with 1080p for simply booting few games they play that they enjoy (especially outside of 1st world country that's mostly F2P competitive games).
@@Trisstan20people will always use this "got a low res because I didn't want to spend more on a GPU". It is an incredibly ignorant and short sighted perspective.
WRONG, I'm using DLSS Q at 1080p and I have a great image quality (better than native) while having better perf or if I limit my fps better efficiency than at 1440p. Also my GPU lasts longer before needing to upgrade at 1080p.
1080p in 2024 in nothing like 1080p 10 years ago or even 5 years ago, it's much better because of all the new tech in hardware and software too.
I'm currently using a 1080p 165hz monitor but I'm buying a 1440p monitor soon.
Same
Worth the upgrade?
I build my pc in 2023 with a 6750xt and bought a 1080p monitor so that my graphic card can play games coming next year with higher graphics option and i am glad i did that even if my gc was a 2k graphics card. Now i was able to play games like hellblade 2 and Alan wake 2 with medium settings at 1080p and still get above 60fps
are u using frame gen and fsr?
i think he is using native@@eltoquedemidas7
What size is your monitor?
Went from 1080p to 1440p wasnt a big difference to me a bit more pixels and sharp, from 1440p to 4k is where it shines and I noticed the difference in clarity and my wallet.
Had to get a 4090 paired with it. Otherwise 4k is for enthusiast and for performance 1440p is currenty the way to go. Thats my 2 cents.
1080p to 1440p was day and night for me. 4k is even bigger but unless the screen size is big and the fps is over 60 then it's not worth it.
@soraceant for 1440p 27 inch is good at 4k 32 or above inches is where it's appropriate for a monitor. I play with 240 hz on 4k the 4090 doesn't always reach that unless u mess with the settings but the graphic fidelity is a sight to behold for sure. Can't go back to 1440p myself since it's a bit blurry, but will do so depending on the performance on 4k.
@@soraceant17% more ppi = day and night
or you had a 32 inch 1080p 😂
Old games from 2000s and 1990s are more suited to 1080p or don't run in higher resolutions than 1080p unmodded.
Not really true, almost every game that uses 3D rendering can select whatever resolution your display supports. A lot of the very old games didn't have UI scaling so that can get a little messy, but otherwise it works.
@@BriBCG the UI is what i mainly meant by not suited
@@jaroslav_vymazal I do really hate that ;) When you could increase the resolution but it would just make the UI too tiny.
@@BriBCG True. Sometimes there is a fix for that with certain games though.
2 issues with 1440p
issue number 1... pricing.
Issue number 2... size.
27 inch monitors are simply too big for some people... Because the things you've trained your eyes to see in your peripherals are now suddenly very displaced, and even outside of your field of view altogether.
I'm a TF2 gamer, i got almost 2k hours on tf2, and i can tell you that after i swapped to a 1440p monitor, 27 inches, i couldn't see the killfeed anymore. And since i couldn't see the killfeed, i couldn't keep track of who was alive or dead, thus severely reducing my performance in the game. That is a big reason why people are still gaming on 1080p.
Ofcourse this noob wouldn't know or care about that.
I have 24 inch 1440p monitor. They do exist
@@MindplexLekker17 nice, well they weren't really prevalent at the time this video was made, or when i made this comment.
At my local tech shop, there's only 1 available... From AOC, and it only has 165 hz, lemme know when they start having 240 hz. xD
@@MyouKyuubi i have exactly this monitor xD. Switched from 1080p 60hz
@@MindplexLekker17 noice
While you count pixels and FPS, game masterpieces require Intel HD Graphics 530, because gameplay rules.
Sorry Daniel. I've been subbed to you for a couple years now, and just have to say, I find your content lately has been pushing the fomo aspect of pc gaming. As in, if we are still playing games on older tech, we are not enjoying it as much as those with the high-end machines. I feel bad for those who are easily convinced that they need higher specs to enjoy pc gaming. There's plenty of enjoyment to be had, even while playing the backlog. I have always hung back a step or two from the cusp of what technology has to offer. The cost to reward factor just isn't enough to justify spending so much. Patience is a rare commodity these days, so l find it surprising and uplifting that so many people are still on 1080p in 2024. The techtuber scene for too long, has perpetuated a message that preaches "your rig's not good enough bruh". And to some degree, they are reaching their target demographic. Intelligence realizes that higher spec technology is better. Wisdom realizes that you don't need it to enjoy life.
I don't think he plays up the FOMO aspect of these things at all. He fairly frequently says "don't upgrade unless there's a reason for you to do so". What a "reason to do so" constitutes is going to be subjective. For some people, like you, it's gonna need to be a damn good reason (eg. my computer doesn't work anymore). For others, it'll be things like "my monitor is not taking advantage of the rest of my system". Both are perfectly fine reasons, and at least in my experience, upgrading usually means passing your old gear down to someone else who will be happy with it.
He is giving buying advice for people who are actively in the market for new products, and I think he does a good job of it. If you can get a disproportionately better product for a little more money, and you have the means and desire to do so, you should! You're buying a product either way, and you want something that you will be happy with for a long time. Especially for monitors. If you don't have the means to, or you just don't care about the advantages, that's absolutely fine. Doesn't have to diminish your enjoyment one bit.
Bro stop taking things so personally. You will never be happy. Dude is just offering advice.... take it or not it's not a cross to die on.
@@chris145kirby You're a dork
You're right! I have a 27" 1440p gaming monitor and recently my 7600 failed. My CPU has no integrated graphics chip, so I found an old GT 610 lying around and installed it, so I can browse the web until I get my new GPU. The GT 610 can only do 1080p but even when stretched out to fit my 27" screen, I was surprised how good the image quality looks! And that's with no special up-scaling enabled. I feel less concerned now about having to buy a budget 8GB GPU if 1080p still looks good on my 1440p monitor. It made me realize how obsessed we have become with everything having to be 2k or 4k.
Or you can use dldsr to run 1440p on ur 1080p monitor then enable dlss for the 960p, and becuase 1080p is above 960p u actualy have enough pixels to display that image, so in short u don’t need a 1440p monitor to do what ur saying
just want to correct you on one point. DLSS takes 960p internal resolution and outputs a 1440p image that means it will still get downsampled to 1080p by DLSDSR and that fact that the game runs on 960p doesn't matter at this point. nevertheless you will get a better image quality than native 1080p and a slight performance hit due to DLDSR.
DLDSR looks kinda weird, both blurry and oversharpened at the same time, even with the slider set to 100% like it should be. Custom Resolutions from the Nvidia Control Panel look way better, it's what I used to use all the time, but they aren't compatible with GSync/Freesync unfortunately.
But yeah, downsampling does wonders to image quality.
@@Alex-ok4ux I think ur right but it’s still better than native
@@ghost085 there’s a smoothness slider on the nvidia control panel for dsr and dldsr it’s set to 33 percent by default, drop that to 0 to remove the over sharpened blur u speak of
@@johnhughes9766Regular DSR requires 33% or less for a nice image without pixel crawling (4x DSR with 0% slider looks great). But DLDSR works the other way around, you have to set it to 100% to get the default image, and lowering the setting makes the image oversharpened.
Should have tested fsr native AA at 1080p vs fsr quality at 1440p.
yep, not everybody has access to DLSS
I am an intelligent dumb gamer
I play at 1440p on my TV and on an IPS 75hz monitor, but I also have a 1080p144hz IPS 24" and sometimes 1080p DLAA looks very good with good framerates and sometimes I prefer that.
In general 1080p looks good, but some games are notorious for been blurry and that is not because of 1080p but because of TAA. I have found that when games have good sharpening implemented or when I use quality sharpening (my go tos are Luma, CAS and iMMerse) it is more difficult to notice differences between 1080p and 1440p but you gain so much smoothness.
Also if DLSS is available and TAA is bad, then DLAA implemented in game or by DLSSTweaks + the sharpening I mentioned does wonders to the image and you get to keep those frames.
I know that I am in the minority, tailoring individual games and setting reshade + DLSSTweaks is not for everyone, it is easy though.
I did this with my 2060 super and now I have more breathing room with my vanilla 4070
Daniel's videos are becoming less about news or testing, and more "This is dumb" or "That is stupid". Opinions are dime a dozen on the internet. I could go watch Linus on the WAN Show if I want shallow hot takes.
Upgraded from 1080p to 4k. Before that I thought game graphics weren't that good (lol) but after seeing 4k can't go back. For graphics performance features wise 1440p seems sweetspot.
Nah, not at all. DLSS is acceptable at upscaling 1440p to 4K, awful at anything else. Blurry as hell, simply unusable. I'm considering my first AMD GPU ever just to get something that doesn't cost me half a year's income whilst being made to solely rely on a crutch-technology to barely function. But that's a good few months away at least.
Besides, 300 USD is more or less what I earn in a month. With the USD recently going up, it's a little less, actually.
I think we need to get clear on this, some youtubers speak from their couch and forget their content reach the entire world, and they let their mouth run free and videos like this appear.
1080pm IS NOT DUMB!. First of all, says the one that in his own videos stated to be shock to realize people do not play the most recent and demanding games, says the one that stated to be surprise to realize the 3060 is good enough to play the vast majority of games.
You think people need path tracing to enjoy their games, you think people need OLED monitor to enjoy their games, you think people need a 4090 to enjoy their games. You are wrong and seems you are not used to people telling you that.
Gaming for many people is a hobby and in many occasions is a luxury, the idea that you can just spend money to improve your experience is silly, there are far more important obligations people need to cover as priority.
This notion that you need the latest of everything to actually enjoy things, this powerful marketing idea that you need to spend and keep spending is clearly set in your brain little math american teacher.
1080p with a decent GPU and monitor, in vast majority of occasion is enough to truly enjoy videogames, cause the fun is provided by the actual gameplay and not by the fucking upscaling technology or the fucking OLED monitor..... boring game is shit game, no matter what.
And finally... you should stop thinking what people should be doing, you are not special enough to tell people what to do.
It's crazy.. I found that you can run a 4k OLED widescreen display and it looks significantly better than 1440p even if its not a 4k GPU. It's crazy! How did we no notice this before! It's like.. duh, I should've just bought the 4k ultrawide OLED for my cheap GPU a looong time ago! Thanks for the wake up call!
the technical idea of the video is good, thing is ppl with 1080p monitors are already at their max budget or even some old gamers invested into 1080p 120-144 hz years ago when it was a thing, imo wait until 4k 4070 ti super pcs drop to 500$ and get a new rig entirely or spend the big stonks now , going to 1440p on low spec pcs is a very bad idea and can destroy their gaming experience
Money.
You might have heard of it?
Get a job.
@SweetFlexZ do you have any idea how the world works? just because someone has a job doesn't mean they have money. people need to live, and while the cost of living is increasing more than ever wages are not increasing to match. so how about instead of telling people to "just work", you try taking a look at anything below the surface?
If you have no money you should not be gaming either way. ;)
Guy has 189K subs I think money left his vocabulary long ago
@@theaveragecactus Mate, gaming and pc world is literally a whim, is not necessity like food, if you don't have enough money don't blame someone else, maybe you should get a better job (can't afford a 200€ monitor, weird)
Please not that you dont actually need a 1440p monitor to render in 1440p. You can use DLDSR, to render in 1440p and then you can use dlss quality. And yes, it works using both at same time. You will get 1440p image quality in a 1080p monitor with 1080p level of performance.
It's not same...i have checked 🗿
I mean TAA native on the latest games is much worst than any resolution with DLSS
haha, so dlss is better than native? lol
@@NulJern yes in some games😂 Go see the comparisons
@@mgrb3 who asked you? He wrote the lastet games and "much worse".. As if you can actually see the difference on a youtube video. Ya'll delusional.
@@NulJern well I play with a RTX card so I can actually see the difference
@@Tifeejanz huh? of course you do? wow the stupidity
I currently run three systems, which I'm constantly comparing in various scenarios. A 1080p 60hz monitor + Xeon E3-1265L v3 + RTX2060S, a 1080p 75hz monitor + R5-5600 + RTX4070 and a 2160p 60hz TV + Xeon E3-1285L v3 + RTX4060. For the second system, the jump in refresh rate is noticeable, but as you go up in image-switching frequency you get diminishing returns. I tested 120hz and 144hz and didn't perceive the differences. This works perfectly fine for a desk scenario. I tested DLSS, but the CPUs would bottleneck the systems. DLAA looks the best and it's the most balanced scenario.
My problem with this is not every game has dlss support
And not all gamers have Nvidia cards
And based on recent FSR updates, I think amd upscaling is closer to 1080p than it is to 1440p upscaled
I totally agree. This even applies to FSR 2.X in most games. But DLSS is even better, of course. 1080p doesn't make much sense in the era of upscalers. I have rx 6600 and play in 1440p with FSR 2.X set to quality or balanced. The picture quality is waaay better than 1080p and performance is almost the same. I have two monitors: 1440p i 1080p, so I can compare.
Greetings from Poland! :)
What about using DLDSR for 1080p monitors to upscale the resolution to 1440p?
Absolutely, but it uses much more resources from your GPU than Daniel's recommendation does.
This is stupid reasoning because a lot of games don't have DLSS/FSR to begin with. Yes, there is driver level, BUT there's catches- only AMD cards from RX 5000 and up have RSR, but it in general looks bad, so there's no point. Nvidia has NIS, but it looks even worse than RSR. There's also the issue of lower end cards needing to use FSR just to get SIXTY frames with 1080p in newer titles.
Edit: Going from 1080p to 1440p can also significantly increase VRAM usage. This isn't great when about half of the 58.73% (number using 1080p as of 7/6/2024 12:35 AM) have 3-6GB cards. Another thing is that your base point is around DLSS not FSR or XeSS.
At the time of calculating people using DirectX 12 GPUs, 52.73% are using 20 series+, 21.87% are using 700 to 16 series, 10.09% (I'll half it for my calculations) are using AMD, 2.96% are using Intel, and the remaining 12.35% are using "other". The amount using 700-16, half of AMD, and Intel add up to 29.88%.
Now res- 19.73% 1440p, 3.91% 2560x1600, 2.25% 3440x1440, 3.73% 2160p, and 0.3% 5120x1440. The first 3 can be ruled as half of the people using 20 series and up, since not many people have 1080/Tis (worse isn't very 1440p viable). Safe to assume the 3.73% and 0.3% are mostly people with 3080/Tis, 3090s, 4080s, and 4090s. So 4.03% of the 52.37% (Now 48.7% for 20 series+). About 1.35% of people with those cards use diff res.
I don't have every bit of info, but for simplicity, let's subtract 25.89% for 1440p, 2560x1600, and 3440x1440 from the 48.7%. Subtract the new 22.81% from the 58.73% using 1080p. That's 35.92% of 1080p users using other cards, most are likely the 29.88%. About 50% of 1080p users have cards with no DLSS. There's still 12.35% "other" though. No clue there.
The math is extremely rough, but my point with this is that Not only is DLSS not available in every game, but about half of the people don't have access to it anyway. There's still FSR and XeSS, but even then, not every game has them. (I got a little lazy after doing most of the calculations, since I have better things to do)
I wouldn't call it a stupid reasoning, he's kind of right, it's better to buy a 1440p monitor today and upscale from 720p, 1080p to 1440p or use 1080p native in modern games, 1440p native in older games. What's wrong with his reasoning though is at 4:46 he's recommending to buy a famous HDR 1000 mini LED monitor Q27G3XMN by AOC, basically the best bang for your buck on the market. The problem is that HDR monitor costs $280 in North America only. Its price is way, way higher in Europe and all other countries. The same can be said about other mini LED HDR monitors.
1080p isn't dumb for me, because I'm using an old 1080p monitor and don't wanna spend money to upgrade.
There are plenty of good 1440p monitors that are within budget to the majority of consumers. It's not ideal to hold on very old 1080p monitors, as technology advances. You can end up bottlenecking your performance based on the outdated tech, and the low Hz rate. It's also far cheaper to invest in a new monitor when you need to improve your performance in this scenario of using an old monitor. Instead of buying a new/used GPU.
@@i_termx_i3854 sure but I don't need to improve my performance, 1080p ultra looks great and is a good match for my gpu+cpu
2:04...yeah the native 1080p here actually has moving tree leaves from the wind, the other their is almost none.
yeah you didn't know that HZD has weather effects? one scene can be windy and another may not?
Honestly, I moved from 1080 to 1440 and didn't notice much difference. Then I moved to 4K and still didn't notice much difference.
I render at native as well since I have a monster gpu.
1080p is perfectly fine if your monitor is 27" or smaller.
Once you get to 32" I think higher resolutions make a lot more sense.
wat, i can see pixels on my 1080 21 monitor, but on 1440 27 i don see it(compare to previous). recommend 27 1080 in insanity -_-
Same, had a 1440p and then i Came back to 1080p. More fps and same quality.
same
lol bro you can't see a difference between 1440p and 4K?(which is more than 2x pixels from 3.7m to 8.3m) then I suggest you go to see an eye doctor! There is incredible difference on the same monitor size like 27 or 28 inch if you would look side by side. 1080p is only somewhat good on 24 inch or smaller which is 92 ppi and 1440p 27 inch has 109 ppi and 4K 27 is 163 or 157 on 28 inch.
@@parker4447 between 1440 and 1080 also giant diff in pixels(2m vs near 3.7) and u need 2 be blind to to not see it on monitor, but i cant see diff on tv(3m far) or on smartphone(too lil) yet on monitors for me difference is so clear
Sadly, these days the lower end-mainstream cards (6600xt/6650xt/3060/4060) are not enough to run the newest games on 1080p native so people have to use upscaling at 1080p already. If you're already using a 6700xt/6750xt/3060ti/4060ti tho and need a to buy a new monitor this might actually be worth it, considering 1440p >120Hz IPS monitors are hitting the 200€ mark already.
It was necessary to compare 1080p DLAA vs 1440p DLSS, because DLAA is better than TAA
Already did, yes 1440p is still better... you have more pixels on the screen
It's not better than native without any kind of temporal AA clarity-wise.
Dlaa is trash
@@evilpotatoman9436 17% more ppi is not a lot lol
Here's another "trick" I use on my 1080p/60hz TV, if the game only has TAA: I use nvidia super sampling called DSR (enable in control panel) to render at a higher resolution than 1080p but then use DLSS and turn off any TAA. Looks super sharp for only being 1080p.
My guy has never heard of laptops. They ship with 1080p displays, even with 1080p OLED displays because on a 15' display, that looks as sharp as a desktop using 1440p. And you don't factor in the type of display in use. Only resolution. An oled 15' 1080p display will look better than a 24-27' 1440p IPS matte display due to its better contrast, colors, etc. Glossy IPS displays will also look better than their matte counterparts unless we talk about actually professional quality matte displays which tend to be closer to glossy ones anyways.
And mate, travel the world. Not just see the sights but actually chit chat with the locals, browse their markets, etc. You'll see $300 in countries with a fraction the purchasing power of developed countries will feel like $600 to even $1000. Some of these countries are just going through crazy inflation. Even in developed countries much of thats true. And thats IF the display is $300 in those countries. It could be higher due to taxes.
15 feet display is MASSIVE, dude. 1920x1080 on that would not look that good.
In my opinion, 1440p is the sweet spot between image quality and performance.
it looks exactly the same... maybe it's RUclips compression and bad bit rate 👀
It doesn't look exactly the same... you're just blind or watching this on a 1" display.
its always youtube compression. 1440 far better. have both resolutions on setup and can compare by eyes)
first game looks better on stairs, u will see that will dlss , stairs looks better, more stable but he might use taa, game prob have dlaa, with that it might be better native by a margin
The problem is that most of users are already upscaling games from sub 1080p to 1080p with DLSS or FSR. In my case, my RTX 2060 Super need DLSS to hit 60fps with medium settings (and maybe high) in most modern games ! Also there's some very rare case like Helldivers where there is no upscaler and you just struggle to run the game at 1080p (the game does not look that good on my computer and i needed to lower the resolution with their tools)
I upgraded a few years back to a 1440p 165hz refresh rate monitor from a 1080p and to my mind was like a night & day difference. Although a VA panel was all I could afford at the time...
Basic IPS 170hz 1440p panels are only around $220 or slightly above it on NewEgg these days, during sale events. I'm refusing OLED until the price drops considerably 😂
If you don't know what display technology you're looking at, and you're physically sitting in the display's sweet spot, can you honestly tell the difference between VA and IPS?
@@tommyg3031 Yeah, these days bro not in 2022 or 2021 when I bought va165hz 1440p it was the cheapest in my region for 280 on sale from 330! IPS was 400 minimum
@@rangersmith4652 VA has black smearing. I'd rather use a TN monitor over VA for gaming.
@@tommyg3031shoot I see on Amazon 1440p 240hz monitor around $169
I play on 1080p plasma and use DLDSR 1620p combined with DLSS quality or balanced, which results in perfectly sharp, stable and smooth image while getting me 60fps everywhere. Really happy with this setup, I do not plan to change my screen anytime soon.
In new games even DLDSR 1440p with DLSS performance looks and performs better than native 1080p
Running native is better for most. Not every game supports dlss and sometimes when it does it does poor job at it or as you have given example with cyberpunk, would provide you with much worse experience than 1080p native.
Also, what is the point of video like this anyway? Giving people bad advice to go and buy higher ress monitor and rely on dlss to get same performance? In what world is that a good advice? It sounds like nvidia representative talking... "forget native boys, just use DLSS"
People will move to 1440p 16:9 when RTX x050/x060 or Radeon RX x600/x600 XT will be able to support it 60-80fps on native 1440p, until then majority will stick to the monitors they've been using for quite a while and giving them advice of getting 1440p display while waiting for new GPUS is horrible advice. Reasons being a) next gen GPU's might be even bigger pile of shit than this generation was from both parties. b) you can just buy display alongside your GPU, which would be a better solution cause you know better what the overall cost will be and on top of that, every display technology over time gets better and cheaper.
So yeah, horrible advice, though to be fair, i think this is the first time you gave bad advice.
Well, this video convinced me to get a new monitor. A few months ago, after seeing what 1440p looked like, I was already considering an upgrade. Since then, 1080p just isn't enough anymore.
1080p with upscalling IMO is not good, even on dlss. 1440p with upscalling at quality imo is 1080p with a sharpening effect, 4K with upscalling quality is imo 1440p with sharpening effect as well. I preffer the real native resto with a sharpening post process, obviously performance suffers.
I personally tested native 1440p and 4p vs DLSS or FSR quality, I didnt see any difference… Have you ever tested it?
@@blondegirl7240 Yes I have and I have seen a diference. Thou experience may differ to others, I also don't claim doing heavy testing. And perhaps monitor quality and eyesight quality, could have a effect on this as well who knows.
Btw I hope my original reply shows I'm talking of a opinion, not claiming hard facts or saying my is the general experience.
U should have used dlaa at 1080 for fair comparison
the only problem is 1440p monitors in my country are like double the price of 1080p 144hz, they sell around 400usd which is not nice...
what country, maybe you need some help finding for a good price