2560X1080 vs 2560×1440: 2560×1080 120fps vs. 2560×1440 100fps vs 3440×1440 80 fps : Wolcen

21:9 monitors against stable fps

Ultra-wide screens are no longer exotic: they are sold in any store, they are actively advertised, and in Steam statistics they got out of the 0.01% zone. It is not surprising, because it is more convenient to work on them, and you can watch movies without black bars. But here’s the problem: they say UltraWide displays are bad for gaming. Let’s check?

Why can games work worse?

Everything here is both simple and complex at the same time. For starters, some blockbusters don’t support ultra-wide monitors. For example, Metal Gear Solid V does not know that 3440×1440 exists, whether it is in windowed or full screen mode. No tricks in this format can not run it. A number of hits are easy to adapt to an exotic resolution thanks to custom patches (and get banned in multiplayer at the same time). Some releases without «crutches» are launched at 21:9, but with problems: the interface shifts, the menu is displayed crookedly … But there is one more nuance — performance.

If we compare 1920×1080 and 2560×1080, it’s clear to anyone: in the second case, the load on the video card increases. But what if we compare 2560×1440 and 2560×1080? It would seem that the answer is obvious: fewer pixels means higher fps. But even here everything is not so simple.

Performance depends not only on resolution, but also on engine optimization.

There is a popular myth that developers spend a lot of time and money on adapting projects to the capabilities of popular hardware. On the one hand, it is logical: if the majority of the game will «fly», then the reviews will be positive. On the other hand, without bold experiments, progress will simply stop. Therefore, there are blockbusters with ray tracing, support for fresh DirectX and ultra-wide resolutions. Of course, all this high-tech goodness may not work as fast as before. Technology needs time to settle down and get rid of “childhood diseases”, and studios need to learn how to properly apply new chips.

What impacts performance on a super wide monitor?

Assume AAA hit runs normally with an aspect ratio of 21:9. Or, at the very least, it supports rendering with minor flaws in the interface and splash screens. There are two options for displaying the image. Some games, like Overwatch, will cut off some of the objects in the frame from above and below, while maintaining the original horizontal viewing angle.

Another option — as in many shooters and racing games — is to leave the height intact, but add the missing pieces on the sides. Of course, the second scenario is an additional load on the GPU. And not only in terms of rendering additional points (relative to 16: 9 resolutionwith the same frame height), but also the cost of generating additional geometry and lighting calculation.

Well, is it time to test everything in practice?

Test Method

Tests will be carried out on two monitors using five screen resolutions. For 16:9, 3840×2160 (4K), 2560×1440 (WQHD), 1920×1080 (Full HD) launched on the AOC AGON ag271ug are blown away. For 21:9 — 3440×1440 (1440p UltraWide) and 2560×1080 (1080p UltraWide), test display — AOC AGON ag352ucg. Let’s take different games: fresh, old, with good optimization and not so much. Let’s make three runs of each of the tests, the median result will be entered in the table.

Since UltraWide resolutions slightly increase the viewing angle compared to standard resolutions, slightly more objects are included in the frame. However, many engines work out this stage of building an image in about the same time — regardless of the resolution or aspect ratio. It’s easy to check: you need to find out how many more points need to be calculated during rendering by dividing the corresponding image areas (2560×1080 and 1920×1080 or 3440×1440 and 2560×1440) and comparing the average frame time (number of fps / 1000). If the measurement result fits into the theory, the additional frame geometry does not affect performance in any way. Does not fit — affects.

In racing, changing the FOV has a very big effect: there are a lot of objects at the edges of the frame, to which complex effects like blur are applied.

Checking arithmetic in a different way. Theoretically, the arithmetic average of performance from 1920×1080 and 2560×1440 resolutions should be close in value to the results of 2560×1080. For obvious reasons, the super-wide resolution matches WQHD in length and Full HD in height, because the total number of displayed pixels is comparable. The reverse is also true: the arithmetic mean of 3440×1440 and 2560×1080 is close to 3000×1260 (3.78 MP). This ratio is not used in monitors, but in terms of the final area it is close to 2560×1440 (3.68 megapixels). Therefore, when comparing these results, we will understand how much more the 21:9 display loads the system..

Done with mathematics. Let’s move on to the measurement results?

What tests have shown

The average values ​​for 9 games are as follows: when upgrading from Full HD to its super-wide version (2560×1080), performance drops by about 18±2%, switching from WQHD to UWQHD (3440×1440) eats away 15±2%. That is, when you change the monitor to the same height, you will lose about 16% fps. No one denied the influence of a larger number of pixels on the rendering time of one frame, but what does it consist of?

The arithmetic average of the frame rate from super-wide 3440×1440 and 2560×1080 for 9 games on three video cards turned out to be 25±2% less than the actual performance at 2560×1440. Taking into account the potential error of 2% due to the difference in the actual number of points — and even more: 27±2%. Similar calculations for the arithmetic mean of 1920×1080 and 2560×1440 to determine the «theoretical» performance of 2560×1080 with error correction showed only -5±2%. That is, additional objects load the video card much more than the changed aspect ratio.

It remains to be seen whether the reason for this is the «extra» triangles of the models or the lighting calculation. The deviation of the average theoretical frame time from that actually obtained in the measurements was less than 5%. This figure is far beyond the threshold of significance within the framework of the study: the geometry preparation stage is almost invisible against the background of texturing and post-processing.

Thus, the optimization myth has been dispelled in practice.

Modern blockbusters that fully support UltraWide resolutions do not have this problem. After all, the GPU still beats the picture into square fragments at the time of calculation. The additional objects in the frame and the natural increase in load due to the larger number of points on the display have a much stronger effect.

what is the best resolution for gaming?

If you want to run games with good graphics, resolution is probably the most important, but also the most demanding setting.

For a long time, the good old 1080p was the goal of every gamer, but after the release of the PlayStation 4 Pro and Xbox One X in 2016 and 2017, respectively, it became clear that Full HD might not be enough. Well, with the release of the PlayStation 5 and Xbox Series X in 2020, the aim for 1440p and 4K became obvious.

Many users wonder what is the best resolution for games today, and that is what we will discuss in this article.

Resolution

As you probably know, resolution describes the number of pixels on a screen, both horizontally and vertically. Thus, the more pixels, the sharper and more detailed the image will be.

There are currently three most popular resolution types in the gaming world:

• Full HD (1080p)
• Quad HD (1440p)
• Ultra HD (2160p or 4K)

As you can see in the image above, the resolution can vary greatly depending on the aspect ratio — 16:9, 16:10, 21:9, 32:9 and so on. However, the three types mentioned above are the most popular. So what are the advantages and disadvantages of each?

Full HD

Many experienced gamers may think that Full HD is not so long ago, but more than 10 years have passed! Previously, the choice was limited and most often came down to 720p or 1080p, which are commonly referred to as HD (or HD Ready) and Full HD, respectively.

Finding the right 720p gaming monitor is a difficult task these days, although 720p TVs still exist and are usually small devices under 30 inches.

But either way, you’re unlikely to be playing anything at 720p in 2022 unless you decide to go on a nostalgic trip with one of the last generation consoles, or if you’re using an outdated/budget graphics card.

With regard to 1080p, this type of resolution remains extremely popular to this day, and for several good reasons. Perhaps the biggest draw is that newer mid-range and higher-end GPUs can deliver significant frame rates.

That’s why 144Hz and 240Hz 1080p monitors are so appealing to eSports players, as all gamers in one way or another strive for the fluidity and responsiveness that these monitors provide.

However, beyond that, 1080p is also very affordable and economical, both for monitors and graphics cards. Even the cheapest budget GPUs currently available can deliver Full HD images. But, of course, do not forget about the graphics settings and features of a particular game.

In general, 1080p is still popular in 2022 because it can be suitable for both those who prioritize performance over visuals and those who are unwilling or unable to spend extra money on a monitor with a higher resolution.

Quad HD

For many gamers, QHD is the best resolution for gaming in 2022. This is because it plays the role of a middle ground between FHD and UHD, offering the best of both worlds.

QHD looks better than 1080p and still offers high frame rates that simply cannot be achieved with 2160p. As such, it’s a good way to balance visuals and performance, and possibly price as well.

Mid-range graphics cards perform very well at 1440p, and even some of the weaker models can do well at this resolution, albeit at a lower frame rate. For RTX graphics cards, using DLSS at 1440p can provide both high-quality ray-traced images and a comfortable frame rate for the gamer.

Ultra HD

Ultra HD, or 4K as it’s commonly known, is the latest standard that literally the entire industry is moving towards. 4K TVs started hitting the market a few years ago, and there are a plethora of 4K monitors out there now, many of which are surprisingly inexpensive.

As you might guess, 4K offers superb clarity and image quality. However, given the sheer number of pixels, resolution requires very powerful hardware.

Indeed, only powerful high-end graphics cards like Nvidia’s latest RTX models can handle this resolution when it comes to running demanding AAA games.

However, even some older and weaker models are capable of running games in 4K, although the frame rate will be lower and less stable without any concessions regarding other graphics settings.

Overall, UHD is the way to go if you value visuals over performance and can afford a high-end GPU and a proper 4K monitor. For most people, however, something more cost-effective would probably be the best option.

Aspect Ratio

Another important aspect to consider is the aspect ratio. Today, most models are conventional 16:9 widescreen monitors, although there are 21:9 or even 32:9 on the market. So how does aspect ratio affect all of this?

Since we are dealing with wide screens, the number of horizontal pixels is usually higher for ultra-wide monitors. This, of course, can affect performance as a 16:9 monitor with a resolution of 2560 × 1440 is not as demanding as a 21:9 monitor.with a resolution of 3440 × 1440.

So what are the main differences of the ultra-wide display?

• Wider field of view that can be useful in competitive games;
• Game performance is slightly worse due to the increased number of pixels.

Of course, there are other factors that are not directly related to games. This includes pricing (ultra-wide monitors tend to be more expensive), more screen real estate (which can help with multitasking or just improve overall productivity), and potentially a better movie-watching experience.

One issue that gamers should be aware of is that some developers intentionally disable ultra-wide screen support in their games so that some users don’t have an unfair advantage over others.

Don’t worry, they don’t stop you from playing at higher resolutions, it’s just that the field of view will remain the same as when playing on a monitor with a 16:9 aspect ratio.

Also, some games just don’t support 21:9 or 32:9, so you may need to tweak some options.

Conclusion

Best aspect ratio for gaming

First, let’s tackle the easier question: aspect ratio. We think 16:9 is the best option for most gamers.

As mentioned, the benefits that ultra-wide monitors provide for gaming are a bit questionable, especially if you’re not going to use the other non-gaming features that such a monitor offers.

Also, ultra-wide monitors tend to cost more than regular widescreen monitors, so you’ll probably get more bang for your buck if you get a 16:9 gaming monitor.

The best resolution for games

And now the main question: screen resolution. Ultimately, none of the options can be declared objectively superior, and it mostly comes down to personal preference and requirements.