Thinking of a 1440p 144hz gsync widescreen... maybe

I have an Asus laptop with the following specs:
Ryzen 7 4800HS
Nvidia 1660TI (with Max Q whatever that is)
16gb of RAM

The laptop itself runs HD 144hz but can run a 4k external monitor. I’m doing that now, just that I’m running 1440p for MSFS on a 4k monitor at 60hz.

I think the only reason that I’d switch to another monitor would be to get wide screen real estate. I could use that in my day-to-day stuff. But here’s my questions:

  1. Will I benefit in MSFS from a wide screen monitor?
  2. Assuming item 1 is “yes”, will driving a 2k wide screen be different from driving my current 4k monitor at 1440p? I’m at a sweet spot now with consistent, smooth gameplay 30fps even in dense areas with mostly medium settings, a few on high. Very happy with that.
  3. Anything else that comes to mind that I’m missing?

Which resolution do you mean for the new monitor? I’m guessing 3440x1440?
(2K is essentially 1080p as 2K means “about 2000 pixels wide”, just as 4K means “about 4000 pixels wide”.)

If so, that’s 5 MP to render, which is about 34% more pixels than you have currently if playing at 2560x1440.

You could “simulate” the new monitor’s rough performance by setting render scaling to 75 with the display resolution at 3840x2160.
That gives about 0.75*3840*0.75*2160 pixels to render which is 4.66 MP, compared to 3440x1440 which is 4.95 MP, so slightly less demanding than with the widescreen monitor.

If you have MSFS set 2560x1440 (with render scaling 100) for normal playing I’d advise you to change it to 3840x2160 and set render scaling to 65 or 70 which should give similar graphics fidelity but less blur in the UI.

I’ve tried about every combo and for my laptop, the full 1440p, medium settings with a few on high gives me the smoothest, most consistent experience. I don’t have airport issues or “look around” issues… very smooth 30fps with my GPU averaging 90%.

I think the widescreen idea is out because my system would struggle under the current settings.

So last question…

Would I see a difference from a 1440p 144hz monitor as opposed to my current 4K 60hz monitor runnimg in 1440p? Or enough of a difference to considering buying one?

Would you prefer to run 1080p with higher settings?

Do you plan to play games other than MSFS? Games that you could get 120+ frames per second at 1440p out of with your current hardware? If not, you don’t need a 144hz monitor and you could perhaps save some money there.

I have one, doesnt work with msfs anyway, no idea iuse fixed refreshrate anyway.

1 Like

(2K is essentially 1080p as 2K means “about 2000 pixels wide”, just as 4K means “about 4000 pixels wide”.)

2k is definitely NOT 1080p. See below for an example of the typical definition of 2k, 4k and Full HD. Some definitions can vary, but don’t confuse 1080p with 2k

2K and 1080p are indeed different, but the quoted post is a bit off IMO.
2K (as they mention) means about 2000 pixels, but 2560 is not about 2000 (actual 2K standards use 2048, 1998 and 1920 which are much closer), and indeed they add that 2560x1440 is officially considered QHD.

2K DCI native is 2048x1080 pixels, which should be the real meaning of 2K. That’s only 6.6% more pixels than 1080p, while 2560x1440p aka 1440p is 77.77% more pixels than 1080p.

In television and consumer media, 1920 × 1080 is the most common 2K resolution, but this is normally referred to as 1080p.

Note that 2560x1440 is not listed anywhere on the page. If anything it could be (and sometimes is) called 2.5K.

Another way to think about it: the pixel count ratio is the same between 5K and 4K UHD (5120x2880 vs 3840x2160) as it is between 1440p vs 1080p (2560x1440 vs 1920x1080), but nobody would refer to 5120x2880 as 4K.

Sure there are different ways to define as you point out. I think, however, that most people buying a 2k monitor would expect 2560x1440 (despite this not being “near 2000” as you say) and would be looking for a refund if it turned out to be 1920x1080. By implication, 1440p is what the OP is referring to when they mention 2k.

This perhaps explains it better:

But we can quote endless articles at each other. Key thing is the actual resolution and not what it’s called.


I’ve tried every combo possible and right now, I’ve found a no-stutter, smooth-everywhere, 30fps consistant experience. I can fly in and out of airports, taxi around, look around, all now at 1440p, medium settings, clouds on high setting along with a few others with no lag or stutters. MSFS is a weird beast and seems to have a sweet spot the size of the head of a pin based on the CPU/GPU combo. We’ve all seen posts by folks with 3090’s that struggle because of their GPU/CPU combo.

The pure 1080p experience gives me higher frame rates and higher settings but overall not a better experience either visually or game/sim play wise. Visually things look the same but 1440p I can easily read dials and cockpit displays whereas 1080p is fuzzy.

I think that from what I’m seeing here that I’m as good as I can get with what I have. :+1:

1 Like

The answer is no. I started MSFS because of covid lockdown and now it’s a really fun hobby. Any system or peripherals I’d get would be with MSFS as the only game to spec my system by.

I’ll stick with my current monitor and it’s all good!

1 Like