Display Resolution Table
| Name | Pixels (H × V) | Megapixels | Aspect | Where you meet it |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| qHD (quarter HD) | 960 × 540 | 0.5 | 16:9 | old phones, small screens |
| HD | 1280 × 720 | 0.9 | 16:9 | streaming baseline, webcams |
| HD+ | 1600 × 900 | 1.4 | 16:9 | budget laptops |
| FHD (Full HD, 1080p) | 1920 × 1080 | 2.1 | 16:9 | the universal default - TVs, monitors, uploads |
| DCI 2K | 2048 × 1080 | 2.2 | ~17:9 | digital cinema projection |
| UW-FHD (ultrawide) | 2560 × 1080 | 2.8 | 21:9 | ultrawide monitors |
| QHD (quad HD, 1440p) | 2560 × 1440 | 3.7 | 16:9 | gaming monitors, flagship phones |
| 4K UHD | 3840 × 2160 | 8.3 | 16:9 | modern TVs, streaming, monitors |
| DCI 4K | 4096 × 2160 | 8.8 | ~17:9 | cinema and pro video |
| 5K | 5120 × 2880 | 14.7 | 16:9 | pro desktop displays |
| 8K UHD | 7680 × 4320 | 33.2 | 16:9 | flagship TVs, almost no native content |
Resolution names are marketing archaeology: 4K was cinema language (about 4,000 pixels across, and DCI 4K really is 4096) that consumer marketing borrowed for 3840-wide TVs, and '2K' means different exact sizes to film people and monitor people. The chart lines the whole family up by pixels so the names stop wobbling: qHD at half a megapixel, the universal FHD default at 2.1, QHD gaming at 3.7, 4K UHD at 8.3, and 8K at a monstrous 33.2.
Two naming traps do most of the confusion. First, 4K UHD (3840 x 2160) is not the same number as DCI 4K (4096 x 2160) - both are '4K' in speech, and both are exactly double 1080p in each direction, which is why 1080p content upscales so cleanly to either. Second, the case-sensitive pair no other spec shares: lowercase qHD is quarter HD (960 x 540, exactly one quarter of 1080p), uppercase QHD is quad HD (2560 x 1440, four quarters). Read the chart's pixel columns, not the names, and the family tree is unambiguous.
How to use
- Pick by pixels-per-purpose rather than by name: video calls and uploads live at HD; 1080p remains the universal default where compatibility matters most; 1440p is the desktop sweet spot for screen real estate without GPU pain; 4K is where TVs have landed for good; and 8K is a display waiting for content that mostly does not exist yet.
- Convert any name to a workload with the megapixel column: a GPU renders pixels, not names, so moving from 1080p to 4K is 4x the rendering work (8.3 vs 2.1 megapixels) and 8K is 16x - the honest way to predict frame rates is the ratio of megapixels, not the label jump.
- Check the aspect before buying ultrawide: 2560 x 1080 and 3440 x 1440 are both 'ultrawide' 21:9 shapes with different pixel counts, and 16:9 content letterboxes on them - the chart's aspect column is the compatibility check for streaming, console output and video calls, which mostly assume 16:9.
Frequently asked questions
Is 4K really 4 times 1080p?
Yes, exactly: 3840 is 1920 doubled and 2160 is 1080 doubled, so 4K UHD carries four times the pixels of Full HD (8.3 vs 2.1 megapixels) - the clean doubling is deliberate, so 1080p content scales to 4K with simple pixel quadrupling and stays sharp. The same doubling continues to 8K (7680 x 4320), which is four 4Ks or sixteen 1080ps. 1440p (QHD) is the odd one out at 1.78x 1080p, which is why 1080p content on a 1440p monitor can look slightly softer than on either 1080p or 4K screens.
What is the difference between 4K UHD and DCI 4K?
256 pixels: 4K UHD is 3840 x 2160 (the 16:9 consumer TV shape, twice 1080p) while DCI 4K is 4096 x 2160 (the cinema standard's slightly wider frame, about 17:9). Cinema chose a width near 4,000 pixels - the literal '4K' - and consumer TVs kept the height-compatible 3840 so 1080p scales cleanly; marketing then applied the 4K name to both. Practically: TVs, monitors and streaming mean 3840; cinema projection and professional video may mean 4096. Content made for one displays on the other with tiny letterboxing or cropping.
Is 1440p worth it over 1080p?
For desktop work and mid-to-high-end gaming, generally yes: QHD's 3.7 megapixels is 78% more screen real estate than 1080p's 2.1 - visible extra workspace for text, code and editing - while the GPU cost is far below 4K's 4x jump. The trade-offs: 1080p content and older console output look slightly softer on a 1440p panel (the non-integer 1.33x scale), and esports players who want maximum frame rates often stay at 1080p deliberately. For TV-distance viewing, skip 1440p entirely - at couch distance, 4K TVs cost little more and carry the whole content ecosystem.
Why do I see black bars when playing 16:9 video on ultrawide?
Because the content and the screen disagree about shape: ultrawide monitors are 21:9 (2560 x 1080 in the chart's UW-FHD row), while streaming, consoles and video calls deliver 16:9. Playing 16:9 content on 21:9 fills the width? No - it fills the height and pillarboxes the sides (or letterboxes if you zoom), because stretching would distort. The exceptions: games with FOV support render natively wider, and some streaming services carry 21:9 or 32:9 content that genuinely fills the panel. The chart's aspect column is the compatibility check to make before buying the monitor.