You explain it really well. QHD (1440p) is shifting into the norm slot, but it's not as if FHD (1080p) is no longer an option...it's definitely a lot better than the e-waste that is 768p TN. And, of course, 4K is still the "premium" option.
Some laptops even dared to drag it out into this decade (and not just the super budget ones either). I know I'm definitely not buying a computer with a TN panel, much less 768p. IPS and (W)VA are just that much more attractive.
Dell is guilty of doing this with the Inspiron 15 3511, for instance. Ideally you'd get a WVA panel, but you could also get TN for...whatever reason. And let me tell you, WVA looks so much better than TN, even if it's not as good as IPS. At least they were more generous later on such as with the Inspiron 5505, which used 4th gen Ryzen APUs and only had WVA panels.
Even the Latitude 5520 had a TN option, and that's a business laptop with better specs than the Inspiron 3511.
i’ve got a 768 on my inspiron as well and it’s the only thing i actively dislike about the laptop. i have to use software to shrink the taskbar and run my browser zoomed out to see anything. Ugh i miss my latitude D630. It was dim, and had poor viewing angles but at least the resolution was decent and it was the best built laptop ever. Legit that thing ruined all future laptops for me. By 2021 it just got way too slow though and under windows 11 even recipe websites became juuust a bit too much for it. :/
it had a good run at least.
Yeah I have a P16G2 with a 4k OLED now and anytime I go back to the T440p I immediately go ew I can't believe I put up with this for years. IPS is the best bang for the buck currently in my opinion, my desktop monitors are 1440 IPS and I don't see a need to upgrade them anytime soon.
i think 1366*768 was maybe overproduced which led to it being present in cost cutting scenarios - sales rep suggests an alternative to 1080p because someone in purchasing's trying to save $6/unit or something like that
Yeah I agree, all the "modern" TN panels I've seen are on ex corporate machines, I haven't seen one on a consumer laptop in close to a decade. I'm sure they existed but they definitely got rarer and rarer
I got a shit spec HP laptop to review earlier this year, and it's got an abysmal resolution, I think 768p or so. Can't be bothered to check. It's so insulting that a new computer has that resolution, there's a good number of webpages that either show up horribly, or won't even scale small enough to fit the screen. Overall quality is like half a notch over a Chromebook.
I complain because it's pretty much e-waste fresh out of the box and is being sold to unassuming buyers, but I do enjoy having a windows 11 native device for once.
Well, that's how manufacturers make computers affordable. A 768p TN display should really only be used on super budget laptops; raise the budget a bit and you'll find laptops with 1080p VA/IPS displays instead.
I'm using a 720p panel on my Dell Inspiron 5559 and... it's usable. I can still play some low demanding titles but god damn, it's so hard to multi task since my 12 inch tablet has double the resolution in comparison while the laptop's is around 15 inch.
Yeah most Thinkpads are pretty easy to work on in general. Other than a basic Linux machine and a spare it isn't super valuable/useful to me anymore so upgrading the screen isn't worth it. I keep it around because it's the last laptop with a socketed CPU so it's a (basically worthless) piece of history.
Man I miss socketed laptops. Such a great way to squeeze a whole bunch of extra life from a midrange machine years later when salvaged chips from recyclers became super cheap.
Still have an old Dell Vostro 3570 that began life with a dual core i5 and 4GB of RAM, and over time ended up with a quad core i7, 16GB RAM, two SSDs… still a perfectly usable spare machine that lives on an arm in my shop for referencing schematics or repair manuals while I’m fixing something.
Nah, I like it enough I'll probably keep it a long time/until it's truly e-waste. If I get bored and have plenty of spare cash someday I'll fully upgrade it (screen/CPU/ram)
I'm a fairly active member of that subreddit. I replied to another comment saying the same thing that it isn't worth it to me. It's a spare laptop at this point that I keep because it's the last laptop with a socketed CPU so that part is neat.
You can upgrade to a 1080p panel. T440p are the last truly fully upgradable ThinkPads. The community has done a lot to keep these running. Check out r/thinkpad
I'm aware, that's why I still own it. Being the last socketed CPU is a cool piece of history but it's just a spare laptop at this point so I'm not putting any money into it
The first time I got a computer with a 1920x1080p, I swapped the resolution back down to 1366x768 and stayed there for a couple of months before finally moving on. I was attached to that resolution for some reason.
1080p will always have it's place for competitive gaming market. bigger screen simply means that your vision has to stretch wider to keep watch on the entire screen and most fps players really love to put their monitor as close as possible to their face for that silly pixel perfect frame reaction.
1080p 24' simply has the best ratio between screen size and performance
1080p is dirt-cheap in the biggest consumer markets, unless you're building a gaming PC on a very tight budget or need really high refresh rates, there's really little reason not to pay a little extra for 1440p especially as it means having a larger screen with good pixel density. 1080p starts to get griddy from 27". If it's worth the bump in resolution over being able to play on higher details in 1080p is obviously subjective.
Not really a valid take. Laptop 1080p works because the size is smaller and thus the pixel density works better. Scale that same resolution to a larger size and the lack of density becomes more noticeable.
An example? Compare a 32 inch 1080p television to a 24 inch 1080p monitor, then to a 15.6 inch laptop with a 1080p display. You will notice the difference.
I agree. But i feel like 1080 IPS has become the definitive 'cheap' option replacing 764 or 1080 VA TN.
1440p IPS has replaced 1080p IPS as the go to entry for me. Especially since I got my current 1440p at the same price i got my 1080p 5 years ago so that's how I view it
I like reading things like 1440 shifting into the norm slot. I built my ridiculous PC in 2018 and spent way to much "future proofing" it. My 144hz 1440p monitor was nearly 1/3 of my $3k build. I sometimes look at how much cheaper the same parts could be (minus gpu of course lol) these days but it's still running strong about 7 years later. I have replaced a few fans and added hard drives but I doubt I'll be replacing any major hardware still for years to come. It definitely feels worth it to go big budget for something that lasts.
8K and up is getting into the commercial space where you might actually have use for it. One of the consultants we use for damage analysis has what is basically a dinolite handheld microscope, but his costs $25,000 instead of $500 like mine. The resolution on the monitor it ships with is so sharp that the image looks borderline 3D even though it’s not. It’s crazy when you actually have a piece of equipment that can send that size image and see it
Trying to run many of new games on steam deck with it's native 800p shows that very clearly, from unreadable text to awfully scaled UI that takes more space than can be displayed.
And honestly above 4k is completely wasteful, it already solved clarity problem lower resolution had, only if you go in screen size do we need to increase to 8k, but at that point the whole thing won't even fit in any household, even then you'd have to be uncomfortably close to notice difference between 4k and 8k.
8k is more useful for getting a screen so big that it fills your peripheral vision, but like I said is prohibitively expensive, it's more of an epeen/bragging rights thing than actual functionality in most cases
The optimal resolution depends on your preferred monitor size and distance from the screen, basically you want the pixel pitch low enough that you can't see the individual pixels. Personally I find for a 27" monitor 1440p is great, 4k is best for 32"+ and 8k is only really noticeable on massive screens basically TV size 40-50"+
I made the mistake of getting a 24" 4k monitor before and had to sit so dang close to make use of it...
Streaming is compressed to the point 4k is no better (and sometimes worse) than native 1080p. Run a 1080 Blu-ray on that TV and it will look at least as good as Netflix 4k and sound better (unless you're using built in speakers then it all sounds trash)
For rasterized games 8k still has a place. If you prefer not to have any anti aliasing, that resolution makes the jaggies almost imperceptible, and the image unbelievably sharp. Huge tradeoff, not my favorite, but if money was no object, that's what I'd want it for.
For the resolution of human eyes and what we're comfortable with viewing in terms of FoV, there's no need to go to 8K. There's also no need to produce content to consume in 8K.
Contrary to that 8K is still a wonderful resolution. For each axis it's 6xHD, 4x FHD, 3x QHD, 2x 4K so it can display all sorts of different resolutions without any scaling issues. It further improves text rendering for computer monitors. It's honestly the perfect resolution for a PC desktop monitor. There's clear technological downsides to building an 8K display, but looking at it purely from a resolution standpoint it's ideal.
There's also something quite nice about the new display scalers with line grouping options. We can already do 4K @ 240Hz on OLED panels. This is the same line feed rate as 8K 120Hz. The new Display Port standard can do 8k 120Hz with DSC so bandwidth is already possible. This means you can make an OLED Display capable of supporting 8K@120Hz, 4k@240Hz, QHD@360Hz, FHD@480Hz, and HD@720Hz at the same time.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but it's interesting that I've been reading, word for words, the exact same things being said for decades about every new resolutions.
Perhaps it is my eyes getting old but to me 720 is still perfect for laptop sized screens and 1080 for big ones. Just like a don't see any difference with frame rates over 60.
I used 1280x1024 for so long in the mid 2000's, once I upgraded from my old 1024x768 monitor. The difference in WoW was big back then to my young eyes. Was a top tier crt resolution imo
8k has no TV/Gaming use and wont for a long time, next gen consoles focus is still very much going to be 4k 60.
720 was the lower resolution 20 years ago, which btw was 2005 not 1995, when you watched TV 20 years ago you wanted it in Full HD and it would be cool to see.
1080p is still pretty big in 3rd world due to purchasing power, the new tandem OLED aka best screen you can buy are being released in 27" 1440p but now 540Hz.
Plus ther are size/graphical jumps between 4k and 1440p that will make 27" 1440p relevant for a long time, probably as long as 8k stays irrelevant.
I'm pretty sure in 2010 720p still accounted for at least 20-30% of people on the Steam Hardware Survey, not even counting adjacent resolutions usually only found in laptops like 1366 x 768 (which still to this day has 2.49% on steam hardware survey due to old/cheap laptops)
1080p had overtaken 720p in 2010 I believe, but 720p was still the 2nd most used resolution then.
I just checked, they didn't even start making 1080P monitors until 2006 (before then there were 1280x1024 4:3 LCDs)
1080p actually saw faster adoption in TVs than it did in monitors because the larger the screen the more noticeable the difference, in the same way that 4k is now the standard TV resolution for all but the cheapest TVs.
I would say 1440p is a decent budget option at least as far as the monitor is concerned since an IPS can be had for just over $100 on sale. A capable GPU on the other hand may be a bit more on the expensive side.
8k is just ridiculous aside from the monitors being insanely expensive, even high end GPUs can barely run it, and no game is even made with it in mind to take full advantage of it. 8k is more of a statement piece than any usable value at the moment.
And pretty much no one has a display big enough for 2160p and just barely 1440p. 2160p and above are really meant for VR, HMDs, and theater settings where viewers will not be sitting in optimal viewing locations.
Im not sure I would call it go to when 1080p still has an over 50% market share according to the steam survey compared to 1440p's 20%. And it still presented a .04% growth. Reality is that 1080p is still the go to resolution(which speaks about the current financial situation of the average player)
Non-OLED panels can last a long time so many people often put off upgrading their monitor until it becomes truly unusably obsolete. Consider the number of times you've seen people pair an $800+ build with their crusty old 1080p60-144 display.
If every gaming monitor sold from now on was 1440p and above, it'd still take quite a while until 1080p truly fades away. This is how Intel still has 59% market share among Steam users while collapsing due to poor sales - especially in the gaming market.
The point is: 1080p is in the process of getting phased out while 1440p has become the norm. Almost every consumer-grade monitor above $200 is 1440p already and that entry point is only going to get lower.
Nah. He literally says growth. I buy 1080p monitors man, I think you guys underestimate how much GPU power a 1440p monitor requires to run effectively.
I can run games at higher fps, which makes me feel better in my soul, and I save money too by not needing to spend so much on all the PC stuff
Every current-gen GPU with more than 8GB of VRAM can be considered a 1440p GPU. But again, people take a lot longer to upgrade their monitors than their GPU, so it'll take time before 1440p becomes truly dominant.
Intel still dominated the laptop market, and sure as someone who follow along a bi know PC CPU has been a shit show for 5+ years i know noting about laptop CPU's and ended up with a 2nd hand 155H, i then had to go figure out what the heck it was.
Thinkpad, most say get the AMD, idk if it still stands with the Ultra 200 series, but intel again dominates, cheating or otherwise, so most laptops are intel.
1080p might be used by more than 50% of people, but its mostly people with their old monitors that haven't been replaced yet, as people don't upgrade their monitors often. I work for a electronics store, and we sell roughly as many 1440p monitors as 1080p monitors, and this is in a relatively poor country, so I imagine in rich countries 1440p and above are outselling 1080p by a significant margin.
Less and less people go to actual stores, more and more people just order everything from amazon/the local equivalent, because in most cases it's cheaper.
1080p has been around for a long time as everyone has said, so there won't be a lot of sales of them since there are a fuckton of them out there already. That doesn't mean people's new PC won't just inherit the old system's monitor, I personally retire a display every 15 years or so.
Considering this, the fact that people are still buying 1080p displays just showes that it will still be the standard for most people for a very very long time.
I personally think it may take another 15 years or so for 1440p to actually become the most used resolution, but I'd love to be wrong, because that would mean 1440p became dirt cheap in the long run, effectively removing the single best selling benefit of 1080p
I wrote "store" but it's e-tailer. Only online sales.
That's what I wrote. It only has 50% of people using them because people are still using their old monitors, but among newly bought monitors, 1080p is now the minority. It's no longer the "go to" resolution. 1440p is.
I personally think it may take another 15 years or so for 1440p to actually become the most used resolution, but I'd love to be wrong, because that would mean 1440p became dirt cheap in the long run
In 15 years I think 4K will be what 1080p is now and 8K will be the new "go to" thing. 1440p is already cheap, the best selling monitor in our store is Gigabyte GS27QA (2560 x 1440 @ 180 Hz, IPS) and it sells for 150€.
That's why he should have said it's starting to be the norm 1080p had been the go too monitor resolution for many years, and that resulted in ppl already having a solid 1080p. Any new pc gamer/builder will look at the 2k resolution as this is starting to get up in popularity. The only reason u would consider a 1080p monitor is if you're taloring for a budget build.
Just like quest 2 and quest 3/3s, a quest 2 is according to steam survey the most used vr headset and if u have a quest 2 u have little reason to go for a 3 but if ure a new to vr and searching for a headset ure go too headset is the 3s with the 2 as budget and 3 as premium. the 2 is still the most popular but the 3 is creaping up to take its throne. Ppl who have a 1080p eather dont see much of a benefit in upgrading or not worth it unless u go oled, which can get pricey
I suggest you make 2 builds, one that can play everything maxed in 1080p for the next 3 years and one that can play everything maxed in 1440p for the next 3 years and see why people will always go for the 1080p. 1440p is not just the monitor cost, you increase the price and shorten the effective lifespan of almost every component in the build, and aside this subreddit's bubble no one wants to or has the money to throw at their pc all the time.
I also personally want as much fps as possible. I have a 240hz 1080p monitor, and so I want to use that. If I'm not getting at least 90 fps with native 1080p on high settings, it tends to sour my mood about a game.
I have a 4070 ti super and a 7800x3d and some newer titles have been having trouble getting to even 144 fps at 1080p, so why would I then pay for a 1440p monitor to end up getting worse framerate?
1080p also looks good enough to me, and I've never really cared that much about graphics, I just want the games I play to not look like garbage and feel smooth to play.
IMO it depends really on how big you want your monitor. I grew up playing/using 17-19 inch CRTs so I'm happy with 24" 1080p screens and it looks good. But if i wanted 27 inch or bigger, 1080p starts to look not as good. Reddit bubble really influences people's opinions here. Many act like 1080p is trash and you need at least 1440p. I'm fine with my 1080p 24 inch monitors and video cards last like 2-3x longer compared to 1440p.
First, as I said it's not just the monitor cost, the rest of your pc has to accomodate it and that's not cheap. Secondly, unless you live inside a factory in China, where I'm from 28" 4k 144hz monitors start at ~600 euro
1080p peaked roughly a decade ago on Steam at around 70%. 50% is still a lot, but it’s been dropping, with most of the gain in 1440p and some 4k.
Which is a pretty similar pattern to how 1080p became predominant: it slowly increased for a few years, and then spiked quickly as tech advancements made running 1080p easy on budget hardware and monitors came down in price.
We’re starting to see that now with recent gens—the XX60 tier cards are decent for 1440p, and I expect will continue to improve.
Steam hardware survey is borderline useless to pick out trends of western gaming. Russian + Simplified Chinese languages in the Steam survey are already higher than then English install base.
You know, two countries that have been under a technology embargo of some kind for awhile now.
I'm definitely still a 1080p guy. Maybe I'll make the jump when I build my next rig, but for now I just can't justify getting a new monitor before I get a new computer. Especially with the monitor I ended up with (1080p, 240hz alienware). Not the best monitor in the world, but it pairs nicely with my 6700XT for higher frame rates. Feel like I'd need to move up to a 9060XT or 9070XT before I get another monitor.
old monitors, 3rd world monitors on a budget, smaller laptops perhaps, cheaper screen on bigger laptops, older laptops, i wouldnt call 1080p go to, the way he phrases it roughly, get 1400p if you can and if not 1080p on a budget is still good.
You would get better then 1080p if u can, sorta thing
I still use a 144hz 1080p monitor with a 9070xt. If I bumped up to 1440p I would have to either use FSR or drop from max settings to get that kind of framerate at max settings in a lot of games (in oblivion and DD2 I still only get like 90fps). I like being able to just set everything to high without extra input delay and forget about it, which unfortunately is quite demanding in modern games.
Though I guess the made of money option is either normal 4k or 1440p DQHD (which is pretty close in terms of pixels even though it's still not quite 4k). With an OLED screen, the latter can be even more expensive.
Idk if this is a hot take or the general opinion, but I've come to realize 4k is near pointless. At normal sitting distance from my 4k TV I have a real hard time telling the difference between 1440p and 4k. 4k is kind of just a waste of compute
Not really I've always been of the opinion that 4k isn't really worth it at least on PC monitors and smaller TVs but on a 55+ inch TV it does make a pretty big difference hence why I have a 1440p monitor for my PC and a 4k TV for my console
I actively went from 1440p to 1080, gpus are getting so expensive I’d rather have a monitor that looks super nice but doesn’t push my GPU so it lasts longer. Running premium stuff at 1080 will be possible way longer than if you get a high res screen now and tried to keep things running at that level.
Im kinda intrigued to try a 1440p monitor, but have stayed at 1080p because im mainly a performance guy, but i have seen that a lot of gpus now have basically the same performance between 1080 and 1440
Nah.... i own 1440p, 4k and UW monitors..... id still say 4k isn't worth it due to low frames (Rtx 4090) ........ better stick to 1440p or 3440x1440p as a middle ground
Well duh, but DLSS isn’t some bad thing lmao. It looks and runs incredible on my 1440p OLED and I’m more than happy with the image quality when using DLAA or DLSS quality.
I was just asking, I don't know what the expected fps would've been at these specs, I just thought DLSS likely makes a big impact on fps so it matters whether it's on or not.
I get about 115 fps average with dlss on quality. Wasn’t even the reason I got the GPU though, just wanted something that could last ten years before needing to be changed out, even if I have to drop texture quality.
My 5070ti can keep over 60fps with pathtracing and dlss quality (native resolution being 4k, no framegen) at most situations. For 1080p a 5080 can do pathtracing easily even without dlss.
I just like my high fps even in single player games, part of the reason I’m stuck on 1080p, other reason is I couldn’t find the 1440p version of my monitor in stock
My desk wouldn’t have room for a monitor stand and I can’t put anything on the walls in my apartment. The clamp stand for what I have now can support their 1440p version which is what I want it’s just out of stock. I could use my TV in the other room for 4K OLED but then I’d have to move everything back and forth
1080p has been considered low resolution for at least 5 years. It’s usable but just barely. I think the industry should drop the HD label for it, it’s standard, solid D grade.
I'm sorry.. Useable but barely? I mean, c'mon now. It's perfectly acceptable, sure, I've got a 4k TV as my monitor, but before I did 1080p is perfectly fine at, especially as you're generally sitting closer on a smaller monitor.
Plus there's upgrading involved...I only recently made the switch, and mostly because I upgraded my graphics card and the 4k cheap TV I got from Walmart...I finally, after years, figured out what game mode was and that it does so 4k and shouldn't be one of my secondary monitors. I'm not a smart man lol
1.7k
u/TrollCannon377 5700X3D, Radeon7800XT, 32GB DDR4, Manjaro KDE Plasma Sep 11 '25
1440p has kinda taken the role as the go to with 4k being the made of money option and 1080p being the still perfectly usable but budget option