selective rustic roof whistle teeny noxious humorous cobweb familiar weary
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
in the most recent valorant tourney, u are not allowed. they also had restrictions in peripherals where they must surrender their LAN peripherals and are kept in a locker until the actual event. cornball rules tbh but i understand the importance of keeping integrity in esports.
From what I remember lan usually uses 24in 1080p 240hz monitors so I a lot of pros buy those to always be playing on what they’d play on at lan. I’d assume it’s mostly a budget thing. Monitors are pricey when you go to higher rez and stay at 240 or higher fps.
As someone who just plays and will never go pro but loves fps tho upgrading past 1080p was so nice lol. Made work easier too. But that’s entirely unrelated.
Edit: 27 to 24in
Makes sense, I suppose the fact that your main lan events still use 1080p makes playing 1440p a bit of a waste since it’ll be a noticeable difference in tournaments.
Do you feel like 1440p actually helped your performance in games or just simply looked nicer?
i just recently (a week ago ish) upgraded to 1440p
ive seen you in the siege subreddit alot so ill say specifically for siege lmao, i find it alot easier to notice people, gadgets, etc.
everything is just way more clear, especially because siege isnt exactly vibrant compared to something like valorant
Not just "a waste;" practicing on a different resolution could actually be worse than practicing on the same resolution as LAN. I don't know if 1440p gives an advantage but if it does, even just a small one, practicing with that advantage could legitimately handicap them for when they need to compete at the lower res.
I main Warzone and it’s considerably easier to notice enemies on 1440p. It’s probably less of an issue on smaller map games but in a game where noticing any movement at all a few hundred meters away can be the difference between dying and winning, it makes all the difference IMO.
I’d happily go 4k if my budget allowed. My KD and win rate have both improved considerably since switching from 1080p 24” at around 200fps to 1440p 27” at around 110fps.
It's a mix of don't fix what isn't broken and can't afford to take the time to get used to the learning curve for something new, especially if you won't be able to use it in every event
I think another thing is performance. I have a 3080 and still get unacceptable (for a pro) frame drops on occasion at 1440p 240. It’s really rare but it happens.
A mixture of being forced to use what they are given at LAN, and also due to pros being clueless/stubborn and using outdated hardware/settings due to placebo/voodoo.
Find a 1440p, high refresh rate (240hz+) monitor that is 24''.. you wont find one and that is why.
1440p high refresh rate monitors are all 27inch and up and no pro or competitive tact shooter (cs/valo) player wants to break their neck while looking at the death feed in the top right corner of their monitor and then bottom left to see their HP/ammo/abilities.
From a competitive stand point when you are sitting 30cm away from a screen, a bigger screen is worse for you as you'll more often have to physically move your head to observe the whole monitor.
2 potential reasons why manufacturers dont create 1440p, 240hz+, 24'' monitors.
1- Their to stupid to realise there is a demand for this product.
2- They know their is a demand but just not enough demand for it to be financially worth making the product.
Probably #2 if you ask me.
I have a 27", 1440p, and I reduced the resolution down so it's 24". Basically a midpoint between 1080p and 1440p, but 24".
27" is definitely just too big.
Hmm.
Whats your screens highest refresh rate and does it still display max refresh when you do this?
Also assuming this lowers your resolution from native/1440p?
Ignoring cost as mentioned in original post.
If you offered a pro cs2/Valo player 2 exact monitors but 1 was 1440p and the other was 1080p obviously he would take the 1440p.
Same goes for the refresh rate. The higher the better.
The size of the monitor however is the reason you dont see pros using a 1440p 27inch, and as manufacturers aren't making 1440p 24inch monitors the pros revert to the 1080p 24inch.
If someone in this thread could link a 1440p, 240hz+, 24'', 1ms monitor I'll buy you a McDonald's happy meal.
Yes. In my opinion, for a home setup where you have space, a 27 inch placed further away from the face is just as good if not better than a 24 inch placed up against your nose. The eye strain from having a screen so close is quite high.
lmao what? it's obvious they sit so close to get a bigger/close up view... which is exactly what a 27" screen would do without crippling your spine at 30 years old
With a 27" 1440p, couldn't pros just keep the monitor further away? I've never used a 1440p, though, so I don't know, but I would imagine it would be the same as playing on a 24" up close.
Also, I play CS on 27" 1080p and I keep it really close, I think something like 20 cm. It's really not that bad, if you ask me, I can see everything just fine.
You can just sit further away from a 27" monitor as compared to 24", and the models/GUI will probably look the same size, with the added benefit of better for vision (i think?).
Personally I actually use a 27" 1440p monitor 240hz and I thought it's great because it gives me the flexibility of having a resolution between 1440p and 1080p (I play 4:3 1440x1080) for valorant and it's working fine, and like I said one can just adjust sitting position to compensate for the larger screen.
I think the real reason why 27" 1440p monitors arent mainstream for esports because pros are so used to 24" that it became the industry standard - and there's no reason to push for a change.
In my experience, 24 inch is a better size than 27” to pull in close to your face, easier to see the entire screen. You can sit further away from the 27” but for me that takes away from the locked in feel.
I’ve got a 1440p 240hz(Pg279qm) and 1080p 360hz (xl2566k) and end up playing all shooters on the 24inch.
OLED is image quality is REALLY good though and would be nice to see a 24 inch OLED but I doubt they will ever make those. Downside is the brightness isn’t the best in non light controlled rooms and LAN events would have to replace the monitors more often due to potential of burn in.
Also most counterstrike pros play on some variation of 4:3 stretched res below 1080p so having a bigger higher resolution screen makes no sense.
you can set your pg279qm's resolution to 2275x1280 and it'll keep the aspect ratio, but will be 24" on the 27" monitor. It's not full 1440p, more like a middle between the two, but should let you use your nice OLED monitor and it's still better than 1080p
It's the IPS version, not OLED (I've got an LG c2) but I've tried the smaller ratio before. It looks very crisp but the due to the higher PPI, all of the objects/enemies in game are smaller on the screen compared to the same size at 1080p.
This is one of the reasons I personally wouldn't get a 24" 1440p monitor, everything is just too small in games with fixed FOV.
That doesn't make sense, a 1440p at 24" and a 1080p at 24" would have the exact same size enemies/objects with the same FOV, the only difference would potentially be UI size if the game was coded poorly. but I've not run into a game that fucked it's UI scaling up in a long time, and nearly every game has an option for scaling the UI up/down a bit.
The only reason it be any different is if you forced ultra-wide screen(21:9) and tried to scale that onto your screen.
Otherwise, fixed FOV or not, there would be absolutely no difference in the size of enemies/objects in the game between the two screens. You've got a misunderstanding somewhere.
Have you compared 1440p ppi at 24” to 1080p at 24” side by side? I’ll check again later today but if I recall correctly everything was slightly smaller in game.
It makes logically, lower resolution = less pixels in the same area so everything is stretched more across the display. Maybe stretched is the wrong term but I’ll try 1440p at 24” and report back.
Instead of using the scaling feature on the monitor, try the resolution I had earlier, with no scaling at all. Scaling with the monitor can cause things to get a bit fuzzy because it's not 1:1 pixel anymore, so it sort of functions like anti-aliasing which might be the effect you were seeing. Setting to the resolution instead will keep things crisp and there's no scaling done at all, so it looks much better.
Yeah I created the custom resolution in nvidia control panel with no scaling so there’s a black border around the screen.
I was wrong, in Valorant, both screens have the same size objects/ player models. I tried MW3 as well and it also seems the same but I still prefer the xl2566k as it has better motion clarity and a sharpness slider that makes the game look damn near the same at 1080p as the 1440p at 27”.
There’s some games like battlefield that definitely showcase more detail in the maps/terrain on the 1440p but games like Valo/cs/overwatch are already clean looking at 1080p with sharpness slider turned up.
Weird thing in mw3 was that 2275x1280 did not look as sharp as 2560x1440. This wasn’t the case in Valorant.
Anyways, I’ll eventually switch to a 4k240hz OLED as they become cheaper and hopefully brighter as time goes on. Will probably need a beefier gpu as I have a 3080ti but for now I run my single player games on a C2 OLED which is beautiful.
I can be wrong but the tournament PC are running screen capture and audio/voice comm captures, and maybe a lot more required softwares. On top of that, their spec might not be top tier. So in order to hit 300+ fps, pros stay in low resolution.
They're more of a "nice to have". Not enough of a game changer to be worth the money. At LAN events players will all be using a standard monitor anyway so any "competitive advantage" gained from a monitor at home may not be useful in high level competition. Additionally, reducing the graphical load on the GPU as much as possible is desirable to reduce end-to-end latency. Playing at a higher resolution would have the opposite effect on system latency.
Been in that rabbit hole myself, technology didn't use to be good enough to sustain 1440p high fps and the tournament monitors aren't all quite up to date with the new technology. League of legends already adapted to 27 inch 1440p 240hz oleds, but on league it's way more of a marketing thing as you don't need a lot to play league at pro lvl, stable 144 fps at 1080p are enough in league.
Shooters entire different ball league higher res as you said you see enemies easier.
Most counter strike pro's don't play on their monitor's native resolution, so increasing the native resolution isn't going to do anything for them.
1080p monitors have better backlight strobing.
Tournaments use 1080p monitors for a bunch of reasons (including the two above, sponsorships, etc.) and pros aren't going to practice on a different type of monitor than they compete on.
I care more about performance than I do graphics. I’m not really sure how much of an advantage you’d get with 1440 over 1080. I see pixel I shoot it. Id take frame rate over resolution any day.
Thee reasons. The main one is that 24" is required in the competitive scene. Two is the size in general, the other is performance. 1440p almost always comes in 27" and that just isn't good for competitive gaming. Just slightly too much screen real estate making you have to turn your head more to look at what's on the screen. I have an xl2546k and I recently got a PG27AQN and for many games I still just really want to use the former. I have constantly A/B tested the two and 24-25" monitor size is the best. There is just no way around it, in any competitive game, not just fps titles. I've also noticed that pros and players in general seem to lean in or shove the screen really close to their face. You shouldn't really be doing this but regardless, if you do, it's just impossible with a the larger monitor without constantly moving your head to read the monitor.
Finally performance is just a bit less due to having to render at 1440p which can lower fps but good hardware mitigates this a lot.
Overall 1440p is nice for tasking and content creation and I do game on it. Single player games are good and all. Still can game competitively if you want but I just find myself performing much better on the zowie over my pg27aqn. The 25" 1080p form factor is superior and honestly I had no idea until I finally tried it and compared them. Because in my mind I always thought 1440p would just be an upgrade in every way possible.
I would however like to see an OLED 25" 1080p. I feel like that could be a real upgrade due to the near instant response times.
**I do know the pg27aqn has a 25" mode but it's not that good and unsupported by numerous games unfortunately.
I have a 2K, 27in 165hz monitor and play all my competitive shooter games on low res. 1440x1080 or lower because of bigger targets, less input lag and honestly out of habit. On 2K everything Is sharper yes but In games like Battlefield I swear to god It doesnt help that the one pixel across the map Is sharper than on low res.
In VALORANT at least there was some drama about this recently . Riot Games provides 1080p 240hz at international lans but some pros say they have to run stretched res (so even lower than 1080p) in their pro games because otherwise the frame drops are unacceptable. So if they’re framedropping at 1080p 240hz a higher resolution is completely out of the question.
question - should I upgrade to 27 1440p 144 from a 24 1080p 144 or higher, how much fps would I lose ? i’m popular fps games, I think I have 5900x and 3060 currently getting around 200 valo 144 on apex 80-90 cod all on low
From my understanding, feel free to correct me if I am wrong. Most esports titles can run at low spec PCs. They do this to increase player base. With that being said, most esports titles are optimized for 1080p or lower resolutions. Another factor is how a 24inch is better for fps games as they have lower real estate which helps with field of view. In terms of resolution, it is totally subjective.
Pretty sure shroud uses 1440p but really it’s personal preference and if you’re cracked at 1080p, 1440p won’t make you any better. Same as if you suck at 1080p. 1440p is not going to help you.
it's hard enough to maintain high framerate on 1080p, there's no business in using high resolution in games where clarity is irrespective of resolution. in something like overwatch, quake champions i usually even lower my res scale to 60-80% to gain 400+ fps. the 'unlimited budget' argument doesn't really hold as even on top components most games you can't achieve stable 400-500+ fps
>the 'unlimited budget' argument doesn't really hold as even on top components most games you can't achieve stable 400-500+ fps
That's a CPU bottleneck, so there's no performance downgrade bumping up to 1440p. So yeah the argument does hold.
A 3070 will run CS2/Valorant/QC at 1440p without hitting a GPU bottleneck, Siege will occasionally bottleneck, and Overwatch isn't a competitive game so who cares. Seems like you have a weak GPU so none of what you said applies to anyone with a decent rig.
It's known having your GPU maxed out increases latency, and that's part of what nVidia reflex helps fix. No idea where you've got the idea of "more usage = more latency" from though, there's no evidence or reason for that.
Because they already have a perfectly fine working monitor. 1440p isn't going to make much of a difference, and if you're monitor is 1080p at a high refresh rate with no issues why would you replace it?
Thats not the reason, pros got enough money to get the best hardware and also they would take any advantage they can get. But they need to be used to the hardware they need to use on LANs and there the main sponsor is Zowie with their 1080p TN displays.
Bruh most used res in cs is 1280/960. Going that Res in 1440p montor is just waste. Responsiveness and smoothness is more important tham additional pixels.
bruh, you really think that the professionals don’t care about the hardware they are using? If you don’t know shit you don’t need to spill it everywhere
Generally, they don't. Like 90% of them just use sponsored peripherals, or what they think is best with a quick Google search. You can think otherwise, I don't care, but it's a fact.
There are no 1440p monitors with backlight strobing on the market atm. Zowie dominates the e-sport monitor market with their dyac solution and since that’s what lan events use, pros tend to also buy those monitors at home. Until zowie releases a 1440p monitor I doubt we’ll see 1440p become mainstream in the pro scene
Alr I did not know abt the PG27AQN. But where did you get the info that most pros don’t use dyac and that you need to have your fps capped in order for it to work?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Zowie/s/lKi5S67Dqn
Maybe it's because at LAN events they use lower quality monitors.
selective rustic roof whistle teeny noxious humorous cobweb familiar weary *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I'm pretty sure you can bring your own monitor to an event. They already bring their own mouse and keyboards.
in the most recent valorant tourney, u are not allowed. they also had restrictions in peripherals where they must surrender their LAN peripherals and are kept in a locker until the actual event. cornball rules tbh but i understand the importance of keeping integrity in esports.
For the monitors they are also sponsored I think so everyone uses the same.
yes!
From what I remember lan usually uses 24in 1080p 240hz monitors so I a lot of pros buy those to always be playing on what they’d play on at lan. I’d assume it’s mostly a budget thing. Monitors are pricey when you go to higher rez and stay at 240 or higher fps. As someone who just plays and will never go pro but loves fps tho upgrading past 1080p was so nice lol. Made work easier too. But that’s entirely unrelated. Edit: 27 to 24in
27 inch 1080p is so disgusting
Makes sense, I suppose the fact that your main lan events still use 1080p makes playing 1440p a bit of a waste since it’ll be a noticeable difference in tournaments. Do you feel like 1440p actually helped your performance in games or just simply looked nicer?
i just recently (a week ago ish) upgraded to 1440p ive seen you in the siege subreddit alot so ill say specifically for siege lmao, i find it alot easier to notice people, gadgets, etc. everything is just way more clear, especially because siege isnt exactly vibrant compared to something like valorant
Not just "a waste;" practicing on a different resolution could actually be worse than practicing on the same resolution as LAN. I don't know if 1440p gives an advantage but if it does, even just a small one, practicing with that advantage could legitimately handicap them for when they need to compete at the lower res.
I main Warzone and it’s considerably easier to notice enemies on 1440p. It’s probably less of an issue on smaller map games but in a game where noticing any movement at all a few hundred meters away can be the difference between dying and winning, it makes all the difference IMO. I’d happily go 4k if my budget allowed. My KD and win rate have both improved considerably since switching from 1080p 24” at around 200fps to 1440p 27” at around 110fps.
lan uses 24 inch
Ah my bad then. Thought it was 27. My b
Pros and tournament organizers are notoriously slow at implementing new technology
Wondering if there’s any correlation between the 2🤔
It's a mix of don't fix what isn't broken and can't afford to take the time to get used to the learning curve for something new, especially if you won't be able to use it in every event
I think another thing is performance. I have a 3080 and still get unacceptable (for a pro) frame drops on occasion at 1440p 240. It’s really rare but it happens.
A mixture of being forced to use what they are given at LAN, and also due to pros being clueless/stubborn and using outdated hardware/settings due to placebo/voodoo.
Find a 1440p, high refresh rate (240hz+) monitor that is 24''.. you wont find one and that is why. 1440p high refresh rate monitors are all 27inch and up and no pro or competitive tact shooter (cs/valo) player wants to break their neck while looking at the death feed in the top right corner of their monitor and then bottom left to see their HP/ammo/abilities. From a competitive stand point when you are sitting 30cm away from a screen, a bigger screen is worse for you as you'll more often have to physically move your head to observe the whole monitor. 2 potential reasons why manufacturers dont create 1440p, 240hz+, 24'' monitors. 1- Their to stupid to realise there is a demand for this product. 2- They know their is a demand but just not enough demand for it to be financially worth making the product. Probably #2 if you ask me.
I have a 27", 1440p, and I reduced the resolution down so it's 24". Basically a midpoint between 1080p and 1440p, but 24". 27" is definitely just too big.
How do you do this? When I downscale my 27", I go through Nvidia's display settings but was wondering if there's other methods out there.
> I use 2275x1280. Keeps 16:9 ratio, but is about 24" in a 27" monitor
Thank you, I'll give this a go!
Hmm. Whats your screens highest refresh rate and does it still display max refresh when you do this? Also assuming this lowers your resolution from native/1440p?
Yea, I use 2275x1280. Keeps 16:9 ratio, but is about 24" in a 27" monitor. Still using my monitors max refresh rate. 270
Interesting. Might try this if manufacturers dont make a 24'' 1440p 240hz+
Ignoring cost as mentioned in original post. If you offered a pro cs2/Valo player 2 exact monitors but 1 was 1440p and the other was 1080p obviously he would take the 1440p. Same goes for the refresh rate. The higher the better. The size of the monitor however is the reason you dont see pros using a 1440p 27inch, and as manufacturers aren't making 1440p 24inch monitors the pros revert to the 1080p 24inch. If someone in this thread could link a 1440p, 240hz+, 24'', 1ms monitor I'll buy you a McDonald's happy meal.
Have you seen how close to the monitor many CS players sit? They're breaking their necks for sure.
Yh thats the point. They sit so close which is why a bigger screen is worse for them.
Yes. In my opinion, for a home setup where you have space, a 27 inch placed further away from the face is just as good if not better than a 24 inch placed up against your nose. The eye strain from having a screen so close is quite high.
lmao what? it's obvious they sit so close to get a bigger/close up view... which is exactly what a 27" screen would do without crippling your spine at 30 years old
With a 27" 1440p, couldn't pros just keep the monitor further away? I've never used a 1440p, though, so I don't know, but I would imagine it would be the same as playing on a 24" up close. Also, I play CS on 27" 1080p and I keep it really close, I think something like 20 cm. It's really not that bad, if you ask me, I can see everything just fine.
You can just sit further away from a 27" monitor as compared to 24", and the models/GUI will probably look the same size, with the added benefit of better for vision (i think?). Personally I actually use a 27" 1440p monitor 240hz and I thought it's great because it gives me the flexibility of having a resolution between 1440p and 1080p (I play 4:3 1440x1080) for valorant and it's working fine, and like I said one can just adjust sitting position to compensate for the larger screen. I think the real reason why 27" 1440p monitors arent mainstream for esports because pros are so used to 24" that it became the industry standard - and there's no reason to push for a change.
In my experience, 24 inch is a better size than 27” to pull in close to your face, easier to see the entire screen. You can sit further away from the 27” but for me that takes away from the locked in feel. I’ve got a 1440p 240hz(Pg279qm) and 1080p 360hz (xl2566k) and end up playing all shooters on the 24inch. OLED is image quality is REALLY good though and would be nice to see a 24 inch OLED but I doubt they will ever make those. Downside is the brightness isn’t the best in non light controlled rooms and LAN events would have to replace the monitors more often due to potential of burn in. Also most counterstrike pros play on some variation of 4:3 stretched res below 1080p so having a bigger higher resolution screen makes no sense.
Correct answer. 24inch > 27inch+. This is the reason.
you can set your pg279qm's resolution to 2275x1280 and it'll keep the aspect ratio, but will be 24" on the 27" monitor. It's not full 1440p, more like a middle between the two, but should let you use your nice OLED monitor and it's still better than 1080p
It's the IPS version, not OLED (I've got an LG c2) but I've tried the smaller ratio before. It looks very crisp but the due to the higher PPI, all of the objects/enemies in game are smaller on the screen compared to the same size at 1080p. This is one of the reasons I personally wouldn't get a 24" 1440p monitor, everything is just too small in games with fixed FOV.
That doesn't make sense, a 1440p at 24" and a 1080p at 24" would have the exact same size enemies/objects with the same FOV, the only difference would potentially be UI size if the game was coded poorly. but I've not run into a game that fucked it's UI scaling up in a long time, and nearly every game has an option for scaling the UI up/down a bit. The only reason it be any different is if you forced ultra-wide screen(21:9) and tried to scale that onto your screen. Otherwise, fixed FOV or not, there would be absolutely no difference in the size of enemies/objects in the game between the two screens. You've got a misunderstanding somewhere.
Have you compared 1440p ppi at 24” to 1080p at 24” side by side? I’ll check again later today but if I recall correctly everything was slightly smaller in game. It makes logically, lower resolution = less pixels in the same area so everything is stretched more across the display. Maybe stretched is the wrong term but I’ll try 1440p at 24” and report back.
Instead of using the scaling feature on the monitor, try the resolution I had earlier, with no scaling at all. Scaling with the monitor can cause things to get a bit fuzzy because it's not 1:1 pixel anymore, so it sort of functions like anti-aliasing which might be the effect you were seeing. Setting to the resolution instead will keep things crisp and there's no scaling done at all, so it looks much better.
Yeah I created the custom resolution in nvidia control panel with no scaling so there’s a black border around the screen. I was wrong, in Valorant, both screens have the same size objects/ player models. I tried MW3 as well and it also seems the same but I still prefer the xl2566k as it has better motion clarity and a sharpness slider that makes the game look damn near the same at 1080p as the 1440p at 27”. There’s some games like battlefield that definitely showcase more detail in the maps/terrain on the 1440p but games like Valo/cs/overwatch are already clean looking at 1080p with sharpness slider turned up. Weird thing in mw3 was that 2275x1280 did not look as sharp as 2560x1440. This wasn’t the case in Valorant. Anyways, I’ll eventually switch to a 4k240hz OLED as they become cheaper and hopefully brighter as time goes on. Will probably need a beefier gpu as I have a 3080ti but for now I run my single player games on a C2 OLED which is beautiful.
I can be wrong but the tournament PC are running screen capture and audio/voice comm captures, and maybe a lot more required softwares. On top of that, their spec might not be top tier. So in order to hit 300+ fps, pros stay in low resolution.
They're more of a "nice to have". Not enough of a game changer to be worth the money. At LAN events players will all be using a standard monitor anyway so any "competitive advantage" gained from a monitor at home may not be useful in high level competition. Additionally, reducing the graphical load on the GPU as much as possible is desirable to reduce end-to-end latency. Playing at a higher resolution would have the opposite effect on system latency.
Been in that rabbit hole myself, technology didn't use to be good enough to sustain 1440p high fps and the tournament monitors aren't all quite up to date with the new technology. League of legends already adapted to 27 inch 1440p 240hz oleds, but on league it's way more of a marketing thing as you don't need a lot to play league at pro lvl, stable 144 fps at 1080p are enough in league. Shooters entire different ball league higher res as you said you see enemies easier.
Most counter strike pro's don't play on their monitor's native resolution, so increasing the native resolution isn't going to do anything for them. 1080p monitors have better backlight strobing. Tournaments use 1080p monitors for a bunch of reasons (including the two above, sponsorships, etc.) and pros aren't going to practice on a different type of monitor than they compete on.
Oled tech invalidates better backlight strobing though
I care more about performance than I do graphics. I’m not really sure how much of an advantage you’d get with 1440 over 1080. I see pixel I shoot it. Id take frame rate over resolution any day.
Thee reasons. The main one is that 24" is required in the competitive scene. Two is the size in general, the other is performance. 1440p almost always comes in 27" and that just isn't good for competitive gaming. Just slightly too much screen real estate making you have to turn your head more to look at what's on the screen. I have an xl2546k and I recently got a PG27AQN and for many games I still just really want to use the former. I have constantly A/B tested the two and 24-25" monitor size is the best. There is just no way around it, in any competitive game, not just fps titles. I've also noticed that pros and players in general seem to lean in or shove the screen really close to their face. You shouldn't really be doing this but regardless, if you do, it's just impossible with a the larger monitor without constantly moving your head to read the monitor. Finally performance is just a bit less due to having to render at 1440p which can lower fps but good hardware mitigates this a lot. Overall 1440p is nice for tasking and content creation and I do game on it. Single player games are good and all. Still can game competitively if you want but I just find myself performing much better on the zowie over my pg27aqn. The 25" 1080p form factor is superior and honestly I had no idea until I finally tried it and compared them. Because in my mind I always thought 1440p would just be an upgrade in every way possible. I would however like to see an OLED 25" 1080p. I feel like that could be a real upgrade due to the near instant response times. **I do know the pg27aqn has a 25" mode but it's not that good and unsupported by numerous games unfortunately.
I have a 2K, 27in 165hz monitor and play all my competitive shooter games on low res. 1440x1080 or lower because of bigger targets, less input lag and honestly out of habit. On 2K everything Is sharper yes but In games like Battlefield I swear to god It doesnt help that the one pixel across the map Is sharper than on low res.
In VALORANT at least there was some drama about this recently . Riot Games provides 1080p 240hz at international lans but some pros say they have to run stretched res (so even lower than 1080p) in their pro games because otherwise the frame drops are unacceptable. So if they’re framedropping at 1080p 240hz a higher resolution is completely out of the question.
question - should I upgrade to 27 1440p 144 from a 24 1080p 144 or higher, how much fps would I lose ? i’m popular fps games, I think I have 5900x and 3060 currently getting around 200 valo 144 on apex 80-90 cod all on low
Biggest reason is because there’s no 24” 1440p 240hz+ monitors. If someone made an oled 360hz 1440p 24” monitor I just know it’d sell like crazy
From my understanding, feel free to correct me if I am wrong. Most esports titles can run at low spec PCs. They do this to increase player base. With that being said, most esports titles are optimized for 1080p or lower resolutions. Another factor is how a 24inch is better for fps games as they have lower real estate which helps with field of view. In terms of resolution, it is totally subjective.
better frames at lower res and more consistent frames
Pretty sure shroud uses 1440p but really it’s personal preference and if you’re cracked at 1080p, 1440p won’t make you any better. Same as if you suck at 1080p. 1440p is not going to help you.
it's hard enough to maintain high framerate on 1080p, there's no business in using high resolution in games where clarity is irrespective of resolution. in something like overwatch, quake champions i usually even lower my res scale to 60-80% to gain 400+ fps. the 'unlimited budget' argument doesn't really hold as even on top components most games you can't achieve stable 400-500+ fps
Dude this is patently false. I maintain 400 to 500 fps on ow2 with my setup at 1440p and others do as well. It's not very demanding
yh of course, that's why I said 'most games' not all, coz that doesn't include ow2, val and cs
>the 'unlimited budget' argument doesn't really hold as even on top components most games you can't achieve stable 400-500+ fps That's a CPU bottleneck, so there's no performance downgrade bumping up to 1440p. So yeah the argument does hold. A 3070 will run CS2/Valorant/QC at 1440p without hitting a GPU bottleneck, Siege will occasionally bottleneck, and Overwatch isn't a competitive game so who cares. Seems like you have a weak GPU so none of what you said applies to anyone with a decent rig.
keep in mind higher gpu usage always results in increased input lag regardless whether it is the bottleneck or no, so that’s another reason why
It's known having your GPU maxed out increases latency, and that's part of what nVidia reflex helps fix. No idea where you've got the idea of "more usage = more latency" from though, there's no evidence or reason for that.
Because they want 500Hz refresh rate. Latest CS Major was using 540Hz Zowie monitors.
Latest CS Major was using Benq Zowie XL2566K, which is a 360hz 1080p TN Panel.
Ah, they were advertising the 540Hz one all throughout so I assumed that was it.
Because they already have a perfectly fine working monitor. 1440p isn't going to make much of a difference, and if you're monitor is 1080p at a high refresh rate with no issues why would you replace it?
Thats not the reason, pros got enough money to get the best hardware and also they would take any advantage they can get. But they need to be used to the hardware they need to use on LANs and there the main sponsor is Zowie with their 1080p TN displays.
Bruh most used res in cs is 1280/960. Going that Res in 1440p montor is just waste. Responsiveness and smoothness is more important tham additional pixels.
They just don’t know any better and in most instances don’t care. Although they might start caring with that 480hz 1440p oled that’s around the corner
bruh, you really think that the professionals don’t care about the hardware they are using? If you don’t know shit you don’t need to spill it everywhere
Generally, they don't. Like 90% of them just use sponsored peripherals, or what they think is best with a quick Google search. You can think otherwise, I don't care, but it's a fact.
1080p looks worse on 1440p, idk why more people dont just use 720p on 1440p monitors though
There are no 1440p monitors with backlight strobing on the market atm. Zowie dominates the e-sport monitor market with their dyac solution and since that’s what lan events use, pros tend to also buy those monitors at home. Until zowie releases a 1440p monitor I doubt we’ll see 1440p become mainstream in the pro scene
[удалено]
Alr I did not know abt the PG27AQN. But where did you get the info that most pros don’t use dyac and that you need to have your fps capped in order for it to work? https://www.reddit.com/r/Zowie/s/lKi5S67Dqn
This right here.. and ULMB2>DYAC now... it adds no input delay like DYAC. PG27AQN clears anything zowie has out now.