2560 x 1440 (WQHD) vs 1920 x 1080 (Full HD)
January 26, 2012 Category: News 11 Comments 
A question which commonly arises when people are considering 27 inch monitors in particular is what real practical advantages a higher resolution of 2560 x 1440 (WQHD) brings to the table compared to the now ubiquitous 1920 x 1080 (Full HD) resolution. You can work out that the WQHD monitor has 3,686,400 pixels compared to the 2,073,600 of the Full HD (which is over 1.77 times as many), but what does this actually mean in practice? The first consideration is that you will most likely be comparing monitors with the same screen size and dimensions – both being 27” diagonal in the 16:9 aspect ratio. The WQHD monitor will have 108.79 PPI (Pixels Per Inch) or 42.83 pixels per centimeter, whereas the Full HD monitor yields 81.59 PPI or 32.12 pixels per centimeter. In other words the potential level of detail in images and potential clarity of text will be greater in the case of the 2560 x 1440 resolution display. The word ‘potential’ has been included here because these factors depends on the source material your viewing as well as the nature of the screen surface.
The extra level of detail can certainly be a straightforward and commonly accepted advantage of the higher resolution, but this difference is actually difficult to illustrate and can only really be appreciated in person. A factor which can be illustrated more lucidly, and is intrinsically linked to the differences in pixel pitch and ‘detail’, is the extra real-estate afforded by the WQHD resolution. The images below show the Windows 7 desktop on the 27” Samsung S27A750D (1920 x 1080) and 27” Samsung S27A850D (2560 x 1440), respectively. Please excuse the ‘fish eye’ effect and slightly distorted perspective of the pictures – this was opportunistic photography in less than ideal light and fairly awkward screen placement.
The desktop in Full HD
The desktop in WQHD
Once you have finished admiring the beautiful Emperor Penguins you should notice that the start menu, quick launch icons, system tray, desktop icons, weather widget and mouse cursor all appear smaller (more compact) with the 2560 x 1440 resolution. The photographs were taken from very similar distances and this goes to illustrate the extra ‘real estate’ the higher resolution gives you to work and play with. As an example, the 1920 x 1080 resolution allows you to display 10 rows of desktop icons down the screen whereas the 2560 x 1440 resolution provisions space for 14 rows. The images below show how everyone’s favourite website appears (circa 26/01/2012) on Firefox 9.0.1 (100% zoom) at 1920 x 1080 and 2560 x 1440, respectively.
Everyone’s favourite website in Full HD
Everyone’s favourite website in WQHD
You can see that more information is displayed at once, vertically, on the higher resolution. There seems to be a fair bit of extra ‘white space’ horizontally which is something you will commonly find on (non-forum) websites when viewing them at such a high resolution. The beauty of this is that you are able to place two websites side by side on the WQHD monitor without feeling like either page is too cramped or having to scroll constantly. The photographs below show this in their usual low to high resolution order at 100% zoom.
Two websites side by side in Full HD
Two websites side by side in WQHD
Note that at the ‘Full HD’ resolution you have to scroll horizontally to see all the information across the pages – things are generally a bit squashed up. Similar principles apply when comparing documents open side by side. The images below show a Word document open alongside an Excel spread sheet on both of the monitors, in their usual order, at 100% zoom. On the S27A850D you can see the whole of one page of the document and the top of the second page, alongside Excel cells up to J58. On the S27A750D you are restricted to under a page of document and up to cell E40. Obviously the number of cells you will see in both cases depends on the size of the cells – some of the columns are wider than default but the relative difference will be the same regardless of this.
Documents side by side in Full HD
Documents side by side in WQHD
Hopefully this post has helped to illustrate some of the practical advantages that come from opting for a WQHD resolution instead of a Full HD resolution. Modern game titles will also benefit from the higher resolution by displaying extra detail, but it must be remembered that the GPU will be working with over 1.77 times as many pixels and the performance will suffer accordingly. Furthermore the current monitor market will restrict your choice to IPS or PLS at 60Hz and close off other avenues such as VA panel and 60Hz or 120Hz TN panel monitors; there are certainly compromises to consider.
Thank you so much for doing this comparison. I always hear people bang about how much better 1440p is without being able to visualise the differences.
Great Article !
I think everyone that has read it will understand the importance of a higher screen resolution monitor.
Thanks for the kind words Nick
. It is certainly useful for people to be able to see the practical side of the high resolution illustrated like this.
Thanks for this article, simple but very useful info!
Thanks, great article. I was more or less aware of the differences but this made it stick better in my brain!
what prevents the manufacturers to make TN based screens with higher resolutions than fullhd?
That’s an excellent question Lev.
I don’t think there is any technical limitation preventing this, but the market for that kind of product isn’t really there. Considering the current 27″ market and various monitor prices a 2560 x 1440 TN panel monitor would likely cost in excess of £450. That brings it up to a level approaching 27″ 120Hz monitors and higher-end 24″ IPS/PLS panels whilst exceeding cheaper 24″ IPS panel monitors (such as the Dell U2412M). Actually the price wouldn’t really be that far off the current price of the Dell U2711 which would offer far greater image performance. I’m sure one day higher resolutions such as WQHD will become a more workable standard for the niche in which most TN panel monitors fit (especially when the GPU grunt is there to run it at high frame rates for gaming) but by then LCD in general will probably be superseded.
Looking at the nearer future things are actually going the other way at the moment and I would expect to see cheaper 1920 x 1080 27″ IPS panel monitors alongside TN panels. There is much speculation (and contact from LG to that effect) to suggest that the upcoming DM92 (D2792M?) 27″ IPS 3D monitor will offer a 1920 x 1080 resolution paving the way for a new breed of 27″ IPS entertainment monitors.
2560×1440 is excellent, if it has 1:1 pixel mapping.
“”"The WQHD monitor will have 108.79 PPI or 276.33 PPcm”"”
How can that be – It is 276.33 PPI or 108.79 PPcm. 1 inch is 2.54cm. 1cm much smaller than 1 inch.
That is of course impossible! I would love to see a 27″ monitor with 276 pixels per cm (over 700ppi) and the graphics card needed to run that
.
Thanks for pointing that out. This has been corrected.
Could you please also show an image of a full HD 1920 x 1080p video displayed on the 2560 x 1440 monitor?
We tried to do this when we were reviewing the Samsung S27A850D but the camera was unable to capture the differences. This is really something you’d have to observe first hand. You can read about what to expect in the ‘scaling performance’ section of that review but really unless you are doing a side by side comparison 1080p video content seems to scale quite comfortably to the 1440p resolution.