The difference is not as huge as you might be thinking, it’s generally not something users notice as much as the physical size difference. 27″ in terms of pixel density for gaming, at a given resolution. It’s computationally as expensive (possibly slightly more so) compared to running the resolution you’ve set natively, so there’s no advantage unless you’re trying to save money or for other reasons wish to get a native Full HD rather than WQHD display. Supersampling should be thought of more as an “Ultra Plus” detail setting. The improvement in clarity and detail and overall look that a physically higher pixel density achieves can not be replicated in other ways.
Whilst supersampling (or increasing “rendering resolution”) offers visual improvement, it is by no means equivalent to running at an actual higher resolution. or RTX 2060, also the monitor selection above is what’s available on Amazon MX at a decent price, although I’m always open to suggestions for other Models or even using Amazon USA with the import fee that it might be linked to InfectedDAS Is worth noticing that I’m planning to pair the monitor with a Powercolor Red Dragon Vega 56 or Sapphire Pulse Vega 56…. So after all that, the different monitors (budget monitors) that I’ve looked at are:Ģ7” with 1440p Supersampling
So I’m planning to upgrade my current and humble monitor Asus VS247H-P (24” ) for a 144Hz one so I thought you could give some guidance as to which is best for gaming and browsing aka YouTube.įrom what I’ve read the consensus for 1080p is 24” over 27” BUT what if you opt for a 27” 1080p using supersamplig? Which opens the next question, is there any benefit with a native 1440p vs supersampling to 1440p for gaming experience? I’ve been reading several post from this forum and really like how the answers are backed with specs and user experience which is great, some of the posts that I’ve read so far are:ġ44hz budget monitor specifically for FPS games
0 kommentar(er)
