2560 x 1440 - Bad or Good?

Evokazz

Well-known Member
Hiya guys, I had an old 24" Samsung monitor that died recently, and I replaced it with a FHD 27" Samsung that has insane light bleed and needed to go back. Having £400 sitting in my Amazon I decided to research a little more. I picked the following monitor:

Amazon product
But on doing research further I am seeing conflicting reports on how video will look on these 2560 x 1440 WQHD monitors.

My main use is general productivity, browsing and Movies/Netflix/Amazon etc, I tend to sit at my desk. The desk is pretty deep so 32" is a brilliant size for me. But some are saying WQHD is amazing for movies and TV, Bluray etc, others are saying it's a mess. I know 1080p is better a little as native to these formats, and my computer isn't powerful enough to justify a 4K monitor, but whats bothering me is all the really well reviewed monitors are all 2560x1440! Surely movies can't be that bad if everyones buying them and reviewing them well? Also the fact the markets flooded with them. It's almost effort to find a good FHD monitor on Amazon from Samsung (brand of choice).

So in short if funds allow (£400) would you buy a 2560X1440 32" 144Hz panel which your PC can handle, if your an all round user but especially movies and general usage (don't game that much). Or would you dismiss the 2560x1440 panels even though their higher spec? and stick to Full HD 1080p?
 

EndlessWaves

Distinguished Member
3840x2160 is a case of whether you want to deal with HiDPI support among your apps, it's got little to do with the power of your computer - with the exception of a rare few applications whose computing demands are strongly resolution dependant (i.e. games).

QHD is the normal resolution for a 32" screen and videos will have no big issues. They'll look better than a (high quality) 720p video on an FHD screen so if you're happy with that then you'll won't have any issues.


Incidentally, whether 2560x1440 should be referred to as WQHD is an interesting question.

The Q stands for quad and means four times the original resolution. So it was originally QXGA - XGA was 1024x768 while QXGA was 2048 x 1536.

That was a 4:3 resolution and when the W came in as WQXGA it stood for the wider 16:9 version so it went from 2048 wide to 2600 wide, keeping more or less the same height (rounded up from 1536 to 1600 to keep the width a multiple of eight).

However HD is 16:9 to begin with so HD is 1280x720 and QHD is 2560x1440.

So should WQHD be a widened version of that, such as 3440x1440 or is it interchangeable with QHD because it's already widescreen?
 

Evokazz

Well-known Member
3840x2160 is a case of whether you want to deal with HiDPI support among your apps, it's got little to do with the power of your computer - with the exception of a rare few applications whose computing demands are strongly resolution dependant (i.e. games).

QHD is the normal resolution for a 32" screen and videos will have no big issues. They'll look better than a (high quality) 720p video on an FHD screen so if you're happy with that then you'll won't have any issues.


Incidentally, whether 2560x1440 should be referred to as WQHD is an interesting question.

The Q stands for quad and means four times the original resolution. So it was originally QXGA - XGA was 1024x768 while QXGA was 2048 x 1536.

That was a 4:3 resolution and when the W came in as WQXGA it stood for the wider 16:9 version so it went from 2048 wide to 2600 wide, keeping more or less the same height (rounded up from 1536 to 1600 to keep the width a multiple of eight).

However HD is 16:9 to begin with so HD is 1280x720 and QHD is 2560x1440.

So should WQHD be a widened version of that, such as 3440x1440 or is it interchangeable with QHD because it's already widescreen?


Would I be better with a 4K panel @ 60hz considering I wont game much and higher hz arent aimed at me right now? with 4K I'd get better images on Netflix Amazon etc? how would 1080p Blurays for example look on a 4K monitor?
 

EndlessWaves

Distinguished Member
For me the primary factor about whether to go for a HiDPI monitor (such as [email protected]") is going to be application compatibility. Applications that have elements that haven't scaled properly is going to be far more noticeable and annoying than slight softness/sharpness differences in videos due to resolution.

If you have an older computer you may also find you don't have the DRM support for services like Netflix and Amazon Prime Video to be willing to deliver the highest bitrate versions - even if you have hardware capable of displaying them.

Higher refresh rates do improve motion smoothless generally and work with most applications - pre-recorded content like video is the exception rather than the rule.


[email protected] is a nice well sorted choice that's not likely to have any quirks that annoy you. It's a good default choice and you won't go wrong with it.

Full HD is pushing it at that size, even on a deeper desk. Unless you're going bigger because you want to move the screen 50% further away for more space in front then you may find it too coarse and everything too large - the same way the 27" differed but even more so.

Options like HiDPI/4K and HDR offer improvements but come with the side effects of some things not working very well.
 

Evokazz

Well-known Member
For me the primary factor about whether to go for a HiDPI monitor (such as [email protected]") is going to be application compatibility. Applications that have elements that haven't scaled properly is going to be far more noticeable and annoying than slight softness/sharpness differences in videos due to resolution.

If you have an older computer you may also find you don't have the DRM support for services like Netflix and Amazon Prime Video to be willing to deliver the highest bitrate versions - even if you have hardware capable of displaying them.

Higher refresh rates do improve motion smoothless generally and work with most applications - pre-recorded content like video is the exception rather than the rule.


[email protected] is a nice well sorted choice that's not likely to have any quirks that annoy you. It's a good default choice and you won't go wrong with it.

Full HD is pushing it at that size, even on a deeper desk. Unless you're going bigger because you want to move the screen 50% further away for more space in front then you may find it too coarse and everything too large - the same way the 27" differed but even more so.

Options like HiDPI/4K and HDR offer improvements but come with the side effects of some things not working very well.

Thanks for the advice, I had shortlisted it to these 2 on a £400 budget, for general productivity and movies which would be the best overall choice? Taking screen size, hz and resolution into account. I do PC Game but not very often, but having at least 144hz would be nice for when I do. One is 32" 2K the other 27" HD. The 32" offers a bigger screen for less money but I'm concerned how 1080p will look on the 32".

Amazon product
Amazon product
 

aybracers

Standard Member
QHD (2560 x 1440) is great but remember that even for 60Hz you will have to use Display port to connect as HDMI only syncs at 30Hz unless you have a special dual HDMI cable.

I have a HP E324q 31.5" monitor that looks stunning for normal HD and even better on Amazon/Netflix content that upscales and Pixel size is less of an issue with this size compated to a 27" QHD monitor.

To go to full 4K you really need an even bigger monitor that requires a lot of deskspace
 

Evokazz

Well-known Member
QHD (2560 x 1440) is great but remember that even for 60Hz you will have to use Display port to connect as HDMI only syncs at 30Hz unless you have a special dual HDMI cable.

I have a HP E324q 31.5" monitor that looks stunning for normal HD and even better on Amazon/Netflix content that upscales and Pixel size is less of an issue with this size compated to a 27" QHD monitor.

To go to full 4K you really need an even bigger monitor that requires a lot of deskspace
So 1080p video looks fine on a 32"? On your QHD? If so I may order the cheaper bigger 144hz 32 panel.
 

EndlessWaves

Distinguished Member
I'm concerned how 1080p will look on the 32".

It'll look great. It might be slightly softer than it's supposed to be but there's not going to be huge differences.

QHD (2560 x 1440) is great but remember that even for 60Hz you will have to use Display port to connect as HDMI only syncs at 30Hz unless you have a special dual HDMI cable.

I think you're mixing it up with DVI there. HDMI has been capable of [email protected] since version 1.3 which had widespread support on computer HDMI ports even a decade ago.
 

aybracers

Standard Member
It'll look great. It might be slightly softer than it's supposed to be but there's not going to be huge differences.



I think you're mixing it up with DVI there. HDMI has been capable of [email protected] since version 1.3 which had widespread support on computer HDMI ports even a decade ago.
Not my experience with the graphics built into Intel CPU's - it may be different with a dicrete graphics card now.
 

EndlessWaves

Distinguished Member
Not my experience with the graphics built into Intel CPU's - it may be different with a dicrete graphics card now.

Intel don't list per-interface maximums before 2013 on their site, but even back then a mid-range chip like the i3-4130 provided sufficient bandwidth for [email protected] (or [email protected]) over HDMI:

Individual implementations have occasionally been less, particularly on low power machines like ultraportables and tablets but it's generally been well supported for a long time.
 

aybracers

Standard Member
Intel don't list per-interface maximums before 2013 on their site, but even back then a mid-range chip like the i3-4130 provided sufficient bandwidth for [email protected] (or [email protected]) over HDMI:

Individual implementations have occasionally been less, particularly on low power machines like ultraportables and tablets but it's generally been well supported for a long time.
Thanks for your info - I've just swopped my Displayport cable for a HDMI cable and all is good at 2560x1440 60Hz. I think you are right - I'm confusing DVI and HDMI - been in this game too long! Anyone remember 9 pin D-sub "Colour" cards for IBM PC's - only 37 years ago.
 

The latest video from AVForums

Podcast: Sony A90J Thoughts, madVR Processor & Sonus faber Lumina II Reviews + Movie & TV roundup
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom