10 years ago was about when 1440p became attainable for not just the highest end systems, and at actual frame rates. At the time I had a 7970 which was a generation old, but it ran games beautifully, and had tanked in price by the time I’d bought it. And when I eventually got my GTX 970 it just solidified the deal.
But at the same time that was when the split between high resolution and high refresh rate happened. 1440p high refresh rate became the cream of the crop, and 1440p 60 or 1080 120 took over for high end, but attainable.
Also lmao this old review from the 290x. I guess that was when 4k took over as the “you can’t do this even if you wanted, but you can try.” Even the 512 bit memory bus was no match for 4k. You needed crossfire just to get 60 fps. https://www.anandtech.com/show/7457/the-radeon-r9-290x-review/11
10 years ago, running demanding games at 1440 was rather tough.
I do agree, it is difficult to go back once you get a 1440 monitor. I wish there were more 16:10 options (2560×1600) though.
10 years ago was about when 1440p became attainable for not just the highest end systems, and at actual frame rates. At the time I had a 7970 which was a generation old, but it ran games beautifully, and had tanked in price by the time I’d bought it. And when I eventually got my GTX 970 it just solidified the deal.
But at the same time that was when the split between high resolution and high refresh rate happened. 1440p high refresh rate became the cream of the crop, and 1440p 60 or 1080 120 took over for high end, but attainable.
Also lmao this old review from the 290x. I guess that was when 4k took over as the “you can’t do this even if you wanted, but you can try.” Even the 512 bit memory bus was no match for 4k. You needed crossfire just to get 60 fps. https://www.anandtech.com/show/7457/the-radeon-r9-290x-review/11