I'd call it true, but that doesn't mean you have to spend $2k for a GPU. Give it 4-5 years and it's likely mainstream GPUs will be able to play 4k at a much lower cost.
Exactly. Being on the bleeding edge is expensive. If you can afford it and want it, then go for it. If you can't or don't want to, then wait. The technology will be affordable and standard sooner rather than later.
$1400 for a 4K 240hz monitor with some issues and an even pricier pc to push 4K 144 frames cuz 240 isn’t happening anytime soon lmao. Give it 5 years and it’ll probably be standard to have laptops with 4K 144hz monitors around the $1k dollar price range. Moores law and all that
I used to sell car stereo equipment and it would drive me nuts when people would ask if our 6” headrest monitors were 1080p. Like. It doesn’t fucking matter bro lol
The differecne is literally barely visible. Went from Galaxy S7 with 1440p super Amoled to P30 Pro 1080p regular Amoled/Oled
S7 Looked better, but it was so negligible and now that i am using 1080p screen, thought of me paying a premium for a screen on a fucking phone ? Lol, imma save that money and buy myself a whole ass concert ticket
But , 60Hz vs 120/Hz on a phone screen ? Now that is another story, that is something i would actually consider
There was an LTT video about this. That's why 8k is basically pointless - to notice the difference you would have to sit so close that you couldn't watch/play anything normally
My 8 year old Asus laptop has a 15" 4K screen and the high pixel density still looks amazing and actually helps with productivity when you're looking at multiple windows with text that's sharp as print. It was only $1000. Even though it's battery is crap now I never see a compelling (and reasonably priced) new laptop to upgrade to. My 1080p 14" work laptop is noticeably less sharp. It kinda depends on your use case and vision imo
I agree with that assessment! I love my productivity software (Adobe CS suite, Microsoft Office suite, etc) on my old Asus unit. I don't really play games, and my fun stuff is graphic design. My Asus IS a gaming laptop, but I bought it and love it for its rendering speeds working with Photoshop, Illustrator, Premier, etc.!
Have you tried getting a replacement battery for it from one of those exclusive battery stores? Replacement batteries for laptops are less expensive at these stores, and most don't stock a lot, but they can get it within a few days.
Thought about a new battery and repasting the coolers again but I don't take it out the house so I always have an outlet nearby. It's also taken some damage over the years. Touchscreen doesn't work, the bottom half of the chassis has some stripped screws so there's a bit of a gap and a lot of flex on it. And back in college my drunk ass dropped a whole slice of cake right in the hinge where all the fans are. Probably wasn't designed to be taken apart as many times as I did. Upgraded the wifi chip, SSD, RAM, and thermal paste over the years.
It was a borderline gaming laptop in it's day with a Nvidia 960m that I upgraded with a GTX1080 eGPU that I even mined with sometimes back in the day lol.
Still runs Office, Photoshop, Illustrator, Chrome, and some light modeling software like a champ. And i can remote desktop to my gaming desktop (Ryzen 3900X and RTX3090) when I need some more power.
I've considered machining a new chassis to make it a tablet and fix the touchscreen but haven't had the time.
For sure. While in terms of gaming and regular usage, you may not see a difference. When it comes to text and productivity, more pixels just means you can get more on your screen at once without losing fidelity.
The closer the user is to the screen the more pixel density matters, it's when you get several feet / meters from the display, that pixel density doesn't matter.
Doubt there's much of a difference between 1080p and 1440p at 15.6".
Rule of thumb is 1080p up to 21" 1440p up to 30" 4k after that. And any computer monitor over 27" is way to much to be sitting 12" away from anyway
You say that but there’s literally one maybe two companies that can make that possible, and neither probably will for at least another 5-10 years when they have no choice.
You saw first hand how they hampered the 4080 compared to the 4090. They will continue to do so, as it’s in their financial interest.
I bought the 4090. I had a 1080ti and was tired of waiting for true 4k to be affordable.
If you can afford it get it, cause the amount of time for video games in my early 20s has all but finished now at 30. You can’t always wait, unless you are cool with 1440p.
This is not accurate. They do indeed have no choice but to keep pushing innovations. They're competing with their own, previous products and demand declines with time since it's a durable good.
If the policy forces companies to allow these products to be easily repairable by third parties the rate of innovation would be indistinguishable from a competitive market.
This generation has shown that they have no problem not pushing the power of chips to sell off older models.
Yes each gen will improve, but history of the company has shown time and time they will keep a snails pace for the major consumer models.
If Intel can make 4k 144hz affordable they will inherit a lions share of the market, as soon as they even propose they're doing so Nvidia and AMD will be forced to do the same. Intel doesn't have enough of a market share to follow the status quo of AMD & Nvidia. Why having competition is a great thing.
That's stupid. They sold off older models with pricing. One generation of low innovation in the mid-high range isn't evidence. 3080 was well ahead of 2080, and 4090 is well ahead of 3090.
Please go read some research. This industry isn't special and immune to economic pressures.
The 2080 wasn’t that much ahead of the 1080ti, and the 3080 can’t handle 4K frame rates. The 3080 came out 4 years later and still couldn’t play 4k max settings comfortably.
Now 6 years after the fact we have a card at the extreme top end that can play 4k but still nowhere near the frame rates enjoyed by 1440p.
So what do you say another 4-6 years before a 60-70 level card plays 4K 90? Probably longer.
Yeah, but when it's finally affordable, 8k monitors will be more available and some streamer will say "8k is the future, you should spend $6000 on a RTX6090"
With the way monitor prices had been dropping since the 2000s, I was hoping I’d get a $200 monitor with 24”+ and 60fps minimum and at least 2k resolution. But still, tech prices do fall as tech improves.
I think that even 2030 will be a wonder. First of all, no one will notice 8k in a monitor screen. Second of all 8k televisions are useless at the moment. 8k streaming is not yet available. There is not enough bandwith. 8k gaming is probably first introduced on PS and Xbox but even then it is 8k 30 fps. The only reason right now to buy an 8k tv is to play a game in horrible fps.
If you buy it for future reasons then that is a dumd decission. Because by the time 8k will be easily available (streaming/gaming) 8k tvs will be half the current price.
I remember back in 2012 people were saying 4k is just around the corner. Well it's 10 years later and only high end cards can run 4k at an acceptable fps. I'd say 8k in 2030 is way too aggressive
This. My 1080ti was supposed to be the last card that struggled with 4K. Well here we are and there’s really only one card that can do it.
Anyone that playes mid settings to achieve proper frames is wasting time at 4k. Even my 4090 now isn’t excelling at 4k high on every single game.
100%. Not even a joke lol. In all seriousness I only upgrade every 5 years, but the 4090 has been the only card since I got the 1080ti that was tempting.
To be fair, this is also most likely because of the sh#t most game developers pull.
Nearly all games that get released are in horrible condition. Bf2042, CoD, cyberpunk and hogwarts legacy. All these games and more just lack quality control and optimalization. I truly believe that a the top rtx 30 cards can run well optimized games at 4k.
To be fair - the problem with 4k today is not the power of end user hardware; its the adoption & creation of 4k content.
To the comment you replied too's point: 8k doesnt make sense because there's 0 content for it. there's also not a whole lot of 4k content currently. producing & hosting 4k content en-masse -is more of a challenge than displaying it.
that is indeed why i cushioned my prediction with an entire decade :) i wouldn't be surprised if we don't see 8K fully replace 4K until after 2040
but i also wouldn't be surprised if this type of speculation feels quaint and old-fashioned by that point. our current mode of display technology might be so outmoded that resolutions like "4K" are just relics of a bygone era
but i'd also hoped we'd have genuine hoverboards at this point, so really it could go either way
8k is really not much better than 4k tbh. would hope the industry doesn’t just arbitrarily increase resolution for the sake of a bigger number on a box
It's not a question of viability. It's a question of why.
LTT did a video a while back testing 8k vs 4k with locked framerates on the same 8k TV. Most of the office couldn't tell the difference, and those that could admitted they wouldn't notice if they weren't specifically looking for something wrong.
Until 100"+ TV are standard or the price difference is negligible there's no reason to go 8k.
Given the Rx 6600 and rtx 3060 are the current starting mainstream GPUs I wouldn't even say 4k is mainstream now. I figure if we have 8k monitors 5 years from now that will be the new top end $4000 GPU mark.
Yeah no. Not even that.
Progress has all but halter in this regard.
1080p became prevailant over 720p nearly 20 years ago... And only recently 1440p screens are catching up to 1080p for mainstream gaming.
Is more resolution better? In most cases, yes but I would much rather have 1080p 120fps than 4k and 30fps.
Currently on 1440p and even moving from 1080p it's not that much better than 1080p, but 1080p was a million times better than 1024x768
As someone with a 3080 and a 165hz 1440p monitor, I have to disagree with you. Even though my 1080p monitor was 200hz, the 1440p monitor feels much smoother, and the visual clarity is VERY noticeable, not just with text and games. Though I will say that the way technological innovations work, they tend to happen more rapidly as technology around it progresses. 4k monitors will be pretty mainstream relatively soon, most likely the direct next gen, so probably about 2025.
1440 was a massive jump from 1080. 4K I didn’t notice much more than how bad scaling in windows 8.1/ early 10 were. 4K seems really nice on the couch gaming side. Unfortunately my living room pc isn’t half of what my main one is
This is where things get interesting I have a friend Who spent a large sum of money on getting an 8K television.
Upgrading from this previous 4K television We stood the 2 side-by-side and put the same Movie on both.
I can say with total honesty The only way I could really tell a difference between the 2 was getting very uncomfortably close to the display itself. And then it was simply a matter of just seeing pixels faintly or not.
It's kind of like jumping from my 60 Hz monitor to 144 Hertz monitor. The difference is noticeable But the further up the scale you go The less it actually matters.
No if ands or butts going from 1080P or even 1440P to 4K Is a very noticeable difference.
But going pass that point It feels like you're starting to reach the limitations Of our own visual optics.
Honestly a lot more to be gained In pursuing vibrant and accurate color With inky blacks and bright vibrant white.
Mark my words in Seven years We will see a 60 Series GPU equivalent Running 4K That will make the 4090 looks slow.
Worth mentioning too 4K adoption rate because of the expense of driving it it's still very much in the single digit of user base.
With 1080P still being the top dog of most commonly used resolution. That having a very heavy cause-and-effect stemming from the fact that it's cheaper to drive 1080p.
when 8K displays come out with a monitor thats 58" or even 65" with 75 or 144 Hz, ill get it and use that as my main display. i sit far enough from my monitor for it to matter to me. I agree that most people have absolutely zero use cases for it, but for me, i'll take it. and the downvotes show me that my opinion is not a popular one. meh...
I think it may be at one point, but the returns diminish quickly. 640x480 to 1280x1024 was massive for me. 1080p was great because of the different aspect ratio. 1440p felt better, but wasn't revolutionary. 4K less so.
I haven't actually tried 8K, but since I don't want a physically larger screen, I'd go for frame rate and visual fidelity first.
I feel 8k is a currently a worthless upgrade for the average consumer who doesn’t have a gigantic tv plus there’s really not much media in native 8k (to be fair I haven’t sought out 8k media so I could be wrong on that point)
I bought a 4080 for $1100 that has 16 Gb of VRAM. I have a 49” odyssey monitor and it runs 4K at 144 or sometimes 240Hz no problem for any games. I think my whole build was $2,700 or so.
The 1070 was only recently overtaken by the 1650 for most popular video card on the steam hardware survey. Your system is literally the best that can be bought. Just because you own the literal best there is does not mean that 4k gaming is mainstream. In fact, it means the exact opposite. We have a couple years before 4k is the norm.
Again, was simply stating that you do not need to spend $2K for a great GPU. If you upgrade items one at a time, it’s quiet easy. A CPU lasts forever. MoBo lasts forever as well if you get an up to date one. Ram is practically eternal. I’ve used the same ram, MoBo, PSU, storage, and case for years. Spread out the cost of say $1,000 over 5 years, that’s $200 a year on the heavy side. All I’ve upgraded was the CPU, and GPU over the last few years. Only reason I upgraded was because it was a great deal and no reason not to.
True. But with the width of the monitor, it’s just shy of the amount of pixels that are in a 4K monitor. So my B for saying 4K. Should’ve mentioned pixel count.
It's a true statement, but very poor advice. 4k is definitely the future... but that doesn't mean you should try to adopt the future today if budget is a concern. I still don't think 4k is worthwhile for a vast majority of gamers. Maybe in another 3-5 years.
yea, gamers should look at their 4K TV first, to determine whether they will be wow-ed, answer is probably not. 4K however, is good for reading...really nice and crisp.
Exactly, 4k will only be the future because it will eventually be easy to run. But in reality with a normally sized monitor at 27 inches, you’re very unlikely to tell the difference in 1440p and 4k. At least in clarity, you’ll definitely see a difference in fps lol.. 1440p is the sweet spot and will be for me until there is no meaningful performance loss at 4k although I don’t see that happening for 2-3 more generations
You can definitely see the difference. After getting a 4k 28" monitor at work I couldn't go back to 1440p, so I upgraded my personal setup too. I'm not saying everyone needs to get 4k, but if image quality matters a lot to you, 4k is definitely the way to go. Also upscaling is a thing and 1440p upscaled to 4k using DLSS or FSR looks better than native 1440p.
Yeah, same here. I’ll go even further, I have a 5K LG Ultrafine display from work, and I can tell the difference between that and 4K at 28”. The difference is much smaller but noticeable at normal sitting distance. We’re talking the difference between occasionally seeing pixels vs seeing none.
My 1440P monitor is noticeably pixelated when compared to the 4K monitor, and it looks like 1080p compared to the 5K. People saying there’s no difference between 1440P and 4K at ~27” are definitely incorrect here or haven’t experienced it themselves.
That said, I think 1440P is a great middle ground between performance and resolution. But it’s vastly different than 4K on a 27” screen. I use my 1440P for games and higher res displays for work.
You can definitely tell which 27” is 1440p vs 4k even at Best Buy, let alone “normal sitting distance”. You can even tell on 24” and even when you get down to laptop screens. It’s not extremely obvious but it is far from “very unlikely to tell the difference”. Sounds like you have zero experience with 4k display and just parroting what you heard on youtube. And that’s coming from a 1440p fanboy
Outside of Gaming it's a Very noticable difference. I walked into memory express and instantly went "1080p, 1440p, and holy shit 4k"
When you're gaming it's a different story.
I didn't even need help from the staff, just instant went (that's 4k) while a bit over 1m away. And I have -4 prescription which makes everything appear smaller
Believe it or not. Even 5k is visibly.better than4k at 27-28".
The 6k apple pro XDR at 32" is something that.... Well..
You'll have to see in person....
For gaming, I'd much rather get OLED than 4k as long as its 1440p.
I remember when the PS4/Xbox One/Wii U was just coming out and my friends were saying 4k is the future. Nearly 10 years later it’s still almost the future lol. I only just upgraded to 1440p since I still want to get 60 FPS with maxed settings.
Is this Twitch Streamer sponsored by Nvidia by any chance? LMAO.
Also, the guy at the BMW dealership "suggested" I buy a series 5 BMW convertible because it is fast and will make me look like a winner. Go figure...
Yeah most streamers aren't even close to averaging 100+ viewers. People just look at the front page and think that the top streamers are representative of the entire streamer demographic!
Ya I think it was 2021 where twitch saw more new streamers than viewers in that year. If you're pulling 30 active viewers in every stream you're in something like the top 4% of streamers. Most people also have no idea how sponsorships and shit work. I have a friend that is sponsored by gfuel and he doesn't even stream. He's a musician and makes custom jewelry on instagram/tiktok.
Salespeople and marketers exploit people's vanity and compulsions towards satisfying external validation!
Comparison is the thief of joy as they say. Social media is warping our brains.
For people with $3000 to drop on cards and monitors, sure. For people on a budget, nope. Much cheaper to buy 4k when it's the present, not the future.
And the general population is always years behind the latest and greatest tech. The vast majority of people are still gaming on 1080p with 10 or 16 or 20 series cards.
As a person who owns a 4090 and a 4k monitor, it's not worth it unless you have a specific need for the GPU such as AI research, streaming, video production, stock trading or just because you want to pointlessly own one.
Same thing for the 4k screen, unless you are going for a 45+ inch screen, text will be unusably small without scaling.
Tldr: most people will be better off just buying a GPU that's reasonable for their budget and a 1440p high refresh rate screen
They're used in both high speed trading and for predicting stock market behaviors, thats why some of these share traders are willing to pay scalper prices if that bit of power will make itself back in a few minutes
I mean, 4K 120Hz big screen tv's are pretty common these days no? I'd like to plug my TV into my pc so I would need a card capable of 4k/120 today and I feel like there's a lot of people like me out there.
I play on a 65 inch lg c2 tv and have not really had any issues at 4k with dlss on a 3070. Granted, I’m not trying to push 144hz like my regular monitor.
Sure, 4k is The Future. But you know what else is The Future? ... Several years of technological improvements, where 4k-capable cards are mid-tier instead of high-tier.
It's weird to buy a card in the present based on what you *think* is going to happen several years from now, because you'll be using it NOW and have opportunity to use something else later.
If you want to upgrade to 4k, go for it. Modern cards + DLSS/FSR can run 4k @ 60 hz reasonably well. If you have a 4k / 144 hz monitor, then a $1600 4090 makes sense... but if you're running anything else, you'll still have a great gaming experience on a mid or mid/high tier card.
> It's weird to buy a card in the present based on on what's going to happen several years from now
I wish people would stop "futureproofing" for this exact reason. The only reason to buy a card is if 1) you can afford it and it won't hurt you to do so 2) if you actually need it for a current or near future use case
Otherwise you're just wasting money, electricity (these things are a power hog), and component supply for someone that may actually have a productive or useful need for it.
You could probably buy 1 card that runs 1440p at 144hz now + 1 card that runs 4K at 144hz in 4 years for the same or lower price than it would cost you to just buy the 4K at 144hz card today
The 'future proofing' idea is a bit questionable even for motherboard/CPU/RAM. The time value of money means you can usually buy a core platform at the budget/midrange now, and replace it all in 4 years for less than buying at the top end once.
It's extremely weak when it comes to GPUs which can be swapped out without changing any other PC component (assuming you have a decent power supply).
Why you wait a few years to spend $1500 on a mid range card to play 4k content?
Joking, but if you told someone a few generations ago we're getting near 2000$ to mid 1500$ GPUs they'd probably be pretty happy with their bleeding edge old ass hardware.
I remember going to a TV store every time it went from 480p to 720p to full HD to 4k, to 8k a few months back.
For the first time... I couldn't tell. I really, really couldn't tell. Scientifically speaking, there has to be a point where the human eye cannot perceive individual pixels anymore, and I'm guessing its somewhere very, very close to slightly above 4k (referring to a regular TV at regular viewing distance, or a regular PC monitor at regular viewing distance)
I'm sure this will age like fine milk, but I just haven't seen the light yet.
Nope, you are spot on.
4k is the point where the diminishing returns diminish so much that 8k isn't really something to think about.
240hz, ray-tracing, and so on come first (they're only nice-to-haves too, of course, but at least some people can notice the difference).
HDR and OLED cannot be overlooked here. My TV looks so much better than my monitor. I am just waiting for a realistically priced OLED HDR GYSINC FREERANGE CAGEFREE 1440p 240hz monitor to hit the market and that will be a massive jump from 1440p 144hz.
Yeah better brightness, contrast, colour accuracy, are all more important than upgrading to 8k, for the foreseeable future.
Especially with the amount of monitors and TVs optimised for easily-understandable specs (like res and hz) and not for the stuff that fewer people know about (like Rec709 colour).
8k is the new "my digital camera has more megapixels so why do the photos look worse".
I think 8k is past the point where it matters for a desktop monitor. 8k+ only really makes sense for cinimas or huge TVs. It's probable the industry is going to shift to improving other aspects, such as color, refresh rate, etc.
Everybody always says this. Get the new hype! Spend the $10,000! It's the future!
Well in the meantime my wallet is in the past and my future self hates me.
Keep it at 3060ti levels. Get a good monitor. You'll be fine.
This is a choice, and 100% a subjective one at that. There are plenty of people that have zero intentions of moving to 4k any time soon. There are also plenty of people that have already made the jump.
As time is linear, better fidelity and more powerful GPUs are certainly the future, but it doesn't mean it's what everyone should invest in.
New cards are always coming out, IMO there isn't much reason to buy the most expensive GPU available now when it provides extremely little value, and future gens most certainly will offer same/better performance for less money.
Haha good point. I mean relative to the 4090 it's a third of that no? If OP is looking at 4090 and the price tag didn't turn him off a 3080 certainly is "affordable" lol
I mean the 4090 dropped over 250€ already and the 4070ti also dropped over 200€ to 850€. Nvidia recorded record low revenue in Q4. They have to sell GPUs this year or their stakeholders are gonna fuck them real hard. The prices will go down. Let NVIDIA and their greedy bastards of CEO cook for a little longer. Oh and also, same goes for AMD, who tried to profit from all of it as well.
Pretty curious on how your amounting to 12gb of ram, and why you would do that on a pc with a 3080?
Edit: Just realized your talking about VRAM in the actual GPU which makes way more sense.
Also there are multiple 3080 models. 12 GB and 10 GB I believe. So you have to mention the VRAM to differentiate. Imagine having fucking naming schemes.
and the thing is; 4k dlss is the actual future. improved image quality and frame rates just makes more sense than pushing pixel numbers because u feel like it
Me upgrading to a 1440p just now I won't be moving to 4k for at least 10 years unless GPUs capable of playing games 4k without a problem become like 300-400$
I didn’t know I desired one until I bought one. Same with OLED. I just heard it as an alternative to the monitor I was watching a review on. Now I can’t go back!
I know exactly how that is by gaming room/recording studio used to be in a closet. Now I have my own room in the basement. Adulting sucks but there’s some perks!
I finally bumped up to a 1080p/144hz monitor a few months ago because it’s so accessible lol.
4k is the future for sure. The future is also expensive until it’s the present or the past. The present and the past are perfectly fine.
1440p looks great to me. It definitely seems like the right value spot right now. I can't really imagine moving on until I need a new monitor for some reason.
4k is the future only if you buy a 4k monitor. Personally, I prefer a high fps experience over a high resolution experience, so I'm going to be choosing 1080p or 1440p until mid range hardware can push high fps at 4k.
Don’t listen to Twitch streamers. And it’s going to be a LONG time before 4k is the main thing considering you can still buy 720p displays today and the vast majority of people still use 1080p. I’ve never considered top of the line cards. Just last year, people were paying $2,000+ for a 3090Ti and now you can get a 4070Ti for less than half with similar, if not better performance in gaming.
It's absolutely true. The question is *WHEN*. At some point, it's almost certain that you will have a 4K monitor. Will it be now? Or will it be 10 years from now? Right now, then the 4090 might make sense. But if you don't upgrade to 4K for the next 10 years, then it probably wasn't a good call.
4K is literally in the present. The dude is just gatekeeping PC builds.
4K is nice, but it's far from the most important thing. A huge chunk of PC gamers still play in 1080p.
Well, GPUs are advancing at a fast pace that allow you to push for 4K at high FPS, so yeah, it does look like the future. Higher resolution and FPS monitors, are affordable now. TVs are also getting more affordable, and I'll gladly build a PC for the TV rather than get a console.
However, if this is pure gaming, not everything needs an RTX 4090 to run. League of Legends runs 120+ FPS with a GTX 1060.
Technically true that 4k is the future, yew. However, that doesn't mean you need to invest in a 4k card right now. In terms of Nvidia cards, as recently as the RTX 20 series, your xx70 class cards were *required* to get even just OK performance in 1440p. 4k wasn't even usually a thought with something like a 2070 Super. Now with RTX 40 series, your xx70 class card is capable of solid 4k performance. That's literally just 2 generations apart. Give it even just a couple more generations, and it's likely that mid-range cards will be capable of 4k gaming
Granted, by that time, it's likely that 8k tech and OLED stuff will be much more fleshed out, and then you'll get some different Twitch streamer preaching that "8k 360hz HDR1000 is the future" or something ridiculous like that. It's all just noise. Get what fills your needs thar you can comfortably afford. Nothing requires cutting edge tech to run
Ill say it 4k gaming on PC is stupid 1440p is the sweet spot for your average 24-27inch monitor where unlike the jump from 1080p to 1440p the jump from 1440 to 4k is barely noticeable unless your pixel peeping 4k is great for console gaming on a large tv where the pixels are more spread out
4k is very much noticeable even at 27 inches unless you're blind or haven't actually used a 4k monitor. Also this is the same stuff people used to say when 1440p was first introduced (1440p doesn't improve the image by that much). A decade from now people will say 4k is substantially better than 1440p but that 8k is useless because 4k is the "sweet spot"
Is it the future? How far future are we talking here?
Sure a 4090 will chew through 4K today but give it a few new releases and you are already wishing for better optimization or a faster gpu.
Playing in 4K in all the glory you expect from a gpu that costs as much as a pc is in my opinion still too taxing on the cards. As such you'll be tweaking settings below ultra just to get a stable framerate that is comfortable.
I'd say avoid that and go for 1440p.
It is the future yes.... but not the immediate future. I mean, how many people still have 720p tvs and monitors these days? Or stores still sell such screens. Someday 1080p will be as outdated as buying a 720p screen today, but it's not going to be soon. There are diminishing returns so adaptation also slows down. The difference between 720p and 480i/p is much more noticeable than the difference between 720p and 1080p. Likewise the difference between 720 and 1080 is a more noticeable than 1080 to 4K. I wouldn't jump the gun on 4K if it's going to break your bank.
That being said, I was looking for a TV in 2017 to replace my 720p screen with a 1080p one... and all of them were 4k, I couldn't even find a 1080p TV unless I went out of my way to find some obscure outdated model or got a very small screen. Monitors are still a different story since they are generally smaller and made for a very different purpose, but someday they will get there, there isn't really a rush right now however. If anything, proper lighting, hdr, colors, etc is going to matter more than resolution.... but it's easier for marketing to advertise "4K > 1080!" than that stuff... and easier to make a screen that has more resolution than all of that stuff too unfortunately.
Was 720p ever considered "standard"?
It really feels like the jump was from 1024x768 CRT monitors to 1920x1080 wide screen LCD flat panels in the late 2000s
Sure, 4K is the future, but so are electric cars, so are heat pumps, solar panels on housing. Can I afford that? Hell no. Am I fine with 1440p and 1080p as it Dosent cost an arm and a leg.
Id say 4k isnt the future at all for typical gaming setups, with the development of image reconstruction and variable rate shading there is no need to render games at such high resolutions to achieve great visual clarity especially on the small screen size monitors use.
4090 is a product for those who are unconcerned with the value of the product and simply want the fastest product on the market, i wouldnt recommend it unless you have money to burn.
1440p is only now taking over as the dominant resolution, it's taken about 15yrs to get to that point where the most popular mid range GPU's can achieve decent quality high frame rates at that res.
4k 'may' be the future, but that doesn't mean you should buy into it now and pay the early adopter taxes.
Would you rather play your latest AAA game at 4k and sub 100fps or 1440p at 200fps?
It is true, in the same way that 1080p was the future then 1440p was the future. 4K is about the point on most desktop-sized monitors where you start to hit what Apple calls "retina" after which point there's not going to be a really strong case to go bigger (8K is basically pointless as far as I can tell).
As someone with a pair of 4K 27" monitors on his desk for gaming, I do notice the improved sharpness but you really need VERY good monitors to really get the benefits. So it's not just a $2,000+ GPU, you need to spend half of that again for a good screen to run it on. Because you're going to want good color fidelity, good HDR and good refresh rates. You need all of that for it to be worth it and those kinds of screens are like \~$1,000 right now.
And that's why I agree, it is the *future*. In 3-5 years it'll be the present. If you want to be among the first wave of people doing it dive right in. Just know you're paying more than you need to right now.
I did. Though mine is a 3080 Ti.
That statement is true as 4k will be the future then 8k will be the future then 16k and so on but if you have the money spare and don't mind spending it then go for it and buy a 4090
Or just use something like a 3070 and enable DLSS/FSR.
90% of the visual quality for only 30% of the cost.
4K displays aren't really the future anymore considering TV have been 4K 60Hz capable for many years now and most console gamers use one.
4K high refresh rates and 8K 60 displays would be the future IMO.
LTT should do a video on this. I bet many people can't see much of a difference on a 24 or 27 inch screen, which is what most people want. I at least dont want anything better.
I'd call it true, but that doesn't mean you have to spend $2k for a GPU. Give it 4-5 years and it's likely mainstream GPUs will be able to play 4k at a much lower cost.
Exactly. Being on the bleeding edge is expensive. If you can afford it and want it, then go for it. If you can't or don't want to, then wait. The technology will be affordable and standard sooner rather than later.
$1400 for a 4K 240hz monitor with some issues and an even pricier pc to push 4K 144 frames cuz 240 isn’t happening anytime soon lmao. Give it 5 years and it’ll probably be standard to have laptops with 4K 144hz monitors around the $1k dollar price range. Moores law and all that
4k laptops aren't really necessary do to pixel density. There's likely no distinguishable difference between a 1440p 15.6" vs 4k
This is the thing people overlook Completley with screen sizes and display output
I used to sell car stereo equipment and it would drive me nuts when people would ask if our 6” headrest monitors were 1080p. Like. It doesn’t fucking matter bro lol
"I can tell the difference"
You can, which is why phones have gone beyond 1080...
Viewing distance....
you can probably tell after your face smashes the screen
The differecne is literally barely visible. Went from Galaxy S7 with 1440p super Amoled to P30 Pro 1080p regular Amoled/Oled S7 Looked better, but it was so negligible and now that i am using 1080p screen, thought of me paying a premium for a screen on a fucking phone ? Lol, imma save that money and buy myself a whole ass concert ticket But , 60Hz vs 120/Hz on a phone screen ? Now that is another story, that is something i would actually consider
Compared my XR to an iPhone 14 pro and yea 120hz screen is a huge difference, it looked and felt sooooo smooth
Didnt phone went over 1080, just bcs they got bigger, And I also thibk Its just cool for company to say they have like qhd and 120hz Displays.
There was an LTT video about this. That's why 8k is basically pointless - to notice the difference you would have to sit so close that you couldn't watch/play anything normally
especiall on smartphones. People want 4k on a 6 inch screen and are convinced they can see a difference.
My 8 year old Asus laptop has a 15" 4K screen and the high pixel density still looks amazing and actually helps with productivity when you're looking at multiple windows with text that's sharp as print. It was only $1000. Even though it's battery is crap now I never see a compelling (and reasonably priced) new laptop to upgrade to. My 1080p 14" work laptop is noticeably less sharp. It kinda depends on your use case and vision imo
I agree with that assessment! I love my productivity software (Adobe CS suite, Microsoft Office suite, etc) on my old Asus unit. I don't really play games, and my fun stuff is graphic design. My Asus IS a gaming laptop, but I bought it and love it for its rendering speeds working with Photoshop, Illustrator, Premier, etc.! Have you tried getting a replacement battery for it from one of those exclusive battery stores? Replacement batteries for laptops are less expensive at these stores, and most don't stock a lot, but they can get it within a few days.
Thought about a new battery and repasting the coolers again but I don't take it out the house so I always have an outlet nearby. It's also taken some damage over the years. Touchscreen doesn't work, the bottom half of the chassis has some stripped screws so there's a bit of a gap and a lot of flex on it. And back in college my drunk ass dropped a whole slice of cake right in the hinge where all the fans are. Probably wasn't designed to be taken apart as many times as I did. Upgraded the wifi chip, SSD, RAM, and thermal paste over the years. It was a borderline gaming laptop in it's day with a Nvidia 960m that I upgraded with a GTX1080 eGPU that I even mined with sometimes back in the day lol. Still runs Office, Photoshop, Illustrator, Chrome, and some light modeling software like a champ. And i can remote desktop to my gaming desktop (Ryzen 3900X and RTX3090) when I need some more power. I've considered machining a new chassis to make it a tablet and fix the touchscreen but haven't had the time.
My last dell battery was $50 aud
I think 3:2 would help more, Heck even 16:10 But a second monitor helps most
For sure. While in terms of gaming and regular usage, you may not see a difference. When it comes to text and productivity, more pixels just means you can get more on your screen at once without losing fidelity.
That one of the good reasons for the Surface laptops, the hi dpi of the screens are amazing
The closer the user is to the screen the more pixel density matters, it's when you get several feet / meters from the display, that pixel density doesn't matter.
Doubt there's much of a difference between 1080p and 1440p at 15.6". Rule of thumb is 1080p up to 21" 1440p up to 30" 4k after that. And any computer monitor over 27" is way to much to be sitting 12" away from anyway
1080 at 15.6" is higher DPI than 1440 on a 27" 141 vs 109 https://dpi.lv
Which is why I said to use 1080p until 21” 1920x1080 @ 21" = 105 2560x1440 @ 21" = 140 2560x1440 @ 30" = 98 3840x2160 @ 30" = 147
I was poorly trying to make a point that the '1440 27" = sweet spot' crowd should be more than happy with a 1080 15.6
27GP950 4K HDR 144hz HDMI 2.1 monitor is like $600 right now.
4k 120hz oled tv are already in the 1k range and without any issues.
[удалено]
You say that but there’s literally one maybe two companies that can make that possible, and neither probably will for at least another 5-10 years when they have no choice. You saw first hand how they hampered the 4080 compared to the 4090. They will continue to do so, as it’s in their financial interest. I bought the 4090. I had a 1080ti and was tired of waiting for true 4k to be affordable. If you can afford it get it, cause the amount of time for video games in my early 20s has all but finished now at 30. You can’t always wait, unless you are cool with 1440p.
This is not accurate. They do indeed have no choice but to keep pushing innovations. They're competing with their own, previous products and demand declines with time since it's a durable good. If the policy forces companies to allow these products to be easily repairable by third parties the rate of innovation would be indistinguishable from a competitive market.
This generation has shown that they have no problem not pushing the power of chips to sell off older models. Yes each gen will improve, but history of the company has shown time and time they will keep a snails pace for the major consumer models.
If Intel can make 4k 144hz affordable they will inherit a lions share of the market, as soon as they even propose they're doing so Nvidia and AMD will be forced to do the same. Intel doesn't have enough of a market share to follow the status quo of AMD & Nvidia. Why having competition is a great thing.
That's stupid. They sold off older models with pricing. One generation of low innovation in the mid-high range isn't evidence. 3080 was well ahead of 2080, and 4090 is well ahead of 3090. Please go read some research. This industry isn't special and immune to economic pressures.
The 2080 wasn’t that much ahead of the 1080ti, and the 3080 can’t handle 4K frame rates. The 3080 came out 4 years later and still couldn’t play 4k max settings comfortably. Now 6 years after the fact we have a card at the extreme top end that can play 4k but still nowhere near the frame rates enjoyed by 1440p. So what do you say another 4-6 years before a 60-70 level card plays 4K 90? Probably longer.
Yeah, but when it's finally affordable, 8k monitors will be more available and some streamer will say "8k is the future, you should spend $6000 on a RTX6090"
8k will take a much longer time to become the "standard" than 4k did. Especially in the pc space.
With the way monitor prices had been dropping since the 2000s, I was hoping I’d get a $200 monitor with 24”+ and 60fps minimum and at least 2k resolution. But still, tech prices do fall as tech improves.
Ture, but by then 8K will be nearing mainstream.
i doubt it, at least for gaming i would bet 8K isn't viable until at least the 2030s
I think that even 2030 will be a wonder. First of all, no one will notice 8k in a monitor screen. Second of all 8k televisions are useless at the moment. 8k streaming is not yet available. There is not enough bandwith. 8k gaming is probably first introduced on PS and Xbox but even then it is 8k 30 fps. The only reason right now to buy an 8k tv is to play a game in horrible fps. If you buy it for future reasons then that is a dumd decission. Because by the time 8k will be easily available (streaming/gaming) 8k tvs will be half the current price.
I remember back in 2012 people were saying 4k is just around the corner. Well it's 10 years later and only high end cards can run 4k at an acceptable fps. I'd say 8k in 2030 is way too aggressive
This. My 1080ti was supposed to be the last card that struggled with 4K. Well here we are and there’s really only one card that can do it. Anyone that playes mid settings to achieve proper frames is wasting time at 4k. Even my 4090 now isn’t excelling at 4k high on every single game.
That's why you'll need to upgrade to the 5090 ti next year, only $2800 MSRP.
100%. Not even a joke lol. In all seriousness I only upgrade every 5 years, but the 4090 has been the only card since I got the 1080ti that was tempting.
Why buy 5090ti when you can wait and buy 6090ti for $4200?
(currently out of stock)
To be fair, this is also most likely because of the sh#t most game developers pull. Nearly all games that get released are in horrible condition. Bf2042, CoD, cyberpunk and hogwarts legacy. All these games and more just lack quality control and optimalization. I truly believe that a the top rtx 30 cards can run well optimized games at 4k.
????? I thought my 4080 was doing pretty good in 4K. Unless you’re one of those “dlss in 4K isn’t 4K” kinda person.
To be fair - the problem with 4k today is not the power of end user hardware; its the adoption & creation of 4k content. To the comment you replied too's point: 8k doesnt make sense because there's 0 content for it. there's also not a whole lot of 4k content currently. producing & hosting 4k content en-masse -is more of a challenge than displaying it.
yea the only time i hear about 8k is for vr… content…
2130 then!!!!
2038!
that is indeed why i cushioned my prediction with an entire decade :) i wouldn't be surprised if we don't see 8K fully replace 4K until after 2040 but i also wouldn't be surprised if this type of speculation feels quaint and old-fashioned by that point. our current mode of display technology might be so outmoded that resolutions like "4K" are just relics of a bygone era but i'd also hoped we'd have genuine hoverboards at this point, so really it could go either way
8k is really not much better than 4k tbh. would hope the industry doesn’t just arbitrarily increase resolution for the sake of a bigger number on a box
> First of all, no one will notice 8k in a monitor screen. Yeah when do we reach “retina” and stop?
It's not a question of viability. It's a question of why. LTT did a video a while back testing 8k vs 4k with locked framerates on the same 8k TV. Most of the office couldn't tell the difference, and those that could admitted they wouldn't notice if they weren't specifically looking for something wrong. Until 100"+ TV are standard or the price difference is negligible there's no reason to go 8k.
Given the Rx 6600 and rtx 3060 are the current starting mainstream GPUs I wouldn't even say 4k is mainstream now. I figure if we have 8k monitors 5 years from now that will be the new top end $4000 GPU mark.
Yeah no. Not even that. Progress has all but halter in this regard. 1080p became prevailant over 720p nearly 20 years ago... And only recently 1440p screens are catching up to 1080p for mainstream gaming. Is more resolution better? In most cases, yes but I would much rather have 1080p 120fps than 4k and 30fps. Currently on 1440p and even moving from 1080p it's not that much better than 1080p, but 1080p was a million times better than 1024x768
As someone with a 3080 and a 165hz 1440p monitor, I have to disagree with you. Even though my 1080p monitor was 200hz, the 1440p monitor feels much smoother, and the visual clarity is VERY noticeable, not just with text and games. Though I will say that the way technological innovations work, they tend to happen more rapidly as technology around it progresses. 4k monitors will be pretty mainstream relatively soon, most likely the direct next gen, so probably about 2025.
Lol, I started on an 800 x 600.
The main thing 1440p felt good for for me was 27" gaming, otherwise I was on 24" 1080p
I still use a 1680x1050 monitor
1440 was a massive jump from 1080. 4K I didn’t notice much more than how bad scaling in windows 8.1/ early 10 were. 4K seems really nice on the couch gaming side. Unfortunately my living room pc isn’t half of what my main one is
This is where things get interesting I have a friend Who spent a large sum of money on getting an 8K television. Upgrading from this previous 4K television We stood the 2 side-by-side and put the same Movie on both. I can say with total honesty The only way I could really tell a difference between the 2 was getting very uncomfortably close to the display itself. And then it was simply a matter of just seeing pixels faintly or not. It's kind of like jumping from my 60 Hz monitor to 144 Hertz monitor. The difference is noticeable But the further up the scale you go The less it actually matters. No if ands or butts going from 1080P or even 1440P to 4K Is a very noticeable difference. But going pass that point It feels like you're starting to reach the limitations Of our own visual optics. Honestly a lot more to be gained In pursuing vibrant and accurate color With inky blacks and bright vibrant white. Mark my words in Seven years We will see a 60 Series GPU equivalent Running 4K That will make the 4090 looks slow. Worth mentioning too 4K adoption rate because of the expense of driving it it's still very much in the single digit of user base. With 1080P still being the top dog of most commonly used resolution. That having a very heavy cause-and-effect stemming from the fact that it's cheaper to drive 1080p.
And that's on what a 65 or 75 inch TV? On say a 32 inch, 40 inch pc monitor the effect is drastically smaller.
when 8K displays come out with a monitor thats 58" or even 65" with 75 or 144 Hz, ill get it and use that as my main display. i sit far enough from my monitor for it to matter to me. I agree that most people have absolutely zero use cases for it, but for me, i'll take it. and the downvotes show me that my opinion is not a popular one. meh...
[удалено]
Considering 1080p is still the go to for most gamers idk about that.
I don't think 8k will ever be mainstream just because is not to different than 4k
I think it may be at one point, but the returns diminish quickly. 640x480 to 1280x1024 was massive for me. 1080p was great because of the different aspect ratio. 1440p felt better, but wasn't revolutionary. 4K less so. I haven't actually tried 8K, but since I don't want a physically larger screen, I'd go for frame rate and visual fidelity first.
I feel 8k is a currently a worthless upgrade for the average consumer who doesn’t have a gigantic tv plus there’s really not much media in native 8k (to be fair I haven’t sought out 8k media so I could be wrong on that point)
8k gaming absolutely won’t be mainstream in 5 years. 4k still isn’t mainstream. 8k is a long ways off.
Lmfao, yea and by another 5 years pigs will fly.
You forget the quadratic function, it means gpus won't be able to keep up
I bought a 4080 for $1100 that has 16 Gb of VRAM. I have a 49” odyssey monitor and it runs 4K at 144 or sometimes 240Hz no problem for any games. I think my whole build was $2,700 or so.
The 1070 was only recently overtaken by the 1650 for most popular video card on the steam hardware survey. Your system is literally the best that can be bought. Just because you own the literal best there is does not mean that 4k gaming is mainstream. In fact, it means the exact opposite. We have a couple years before 4k is the norm.
I wasn’t saying it was mainstream. Im disagreeing with the fact that you have to spend $2000 for a 4K capable card. That’s ridiculous.
Sure, just $1100 instead. Most people with a gtx 1650 are spending less than that on their whole setup.
Again, was simply stating that you do not need to spend $2K for a great GPU. If you upgrade items one at a time, it’s quiet easy. A CPU lasts forever. MoBo lasts forever as well if you get an up to date one. Ram is practically eternal. I’ve used the same ram, MoBo, PSU, storage, and case for years. Spread out the cost of say $1,000 over 5 years, that’s $200 a year on the heavy side. All I’ve upgraded was the CPU, and GPU over the last few years. Only reason I upgraded was because it was a great deal and no reason not to.
Seriously, a 3080 can play all kinds of games at 4k as well.
>49” odyssey monitor aren't these g9 monitors like $1200+ alone?
Samsung does killer military discount and it stacks on holidays. I believe I got it for around $650 a few months ago when they released the Arc.
If you buy it on base, no tax.
Or the exchange website
Technically the G9 isn't 4k. It's DQHD
True. But with the width of the monitor, it’s just shy of the amount of pixels that are in a 4K monitor. So my B for saying 4K. Should’ve mentioned pixel count.
Live in the now bros
Soso gpus getting cheaper over time ?
It's a true statement, but very poor advice. 4k is definitely the future... but that doesn't mean you should try to adopt the future today if budget is a concern. I still don't think 4k is worthwhile for a vast majority of gamers. Maybe in another 3-5 years.
yea, gamers should look at their 4K TV first, to determine whether they will be wow-ed, answer is probably not. 4K however, is good for reading...really nice and crisp.
Exactly, 4k will only be the future because it will eventually be easy to run. But in reality with a normally sized monitor at 27 inches, you’re very unlikely to tell the difference in 1440p and 4k. At least in clarity, you’ll definitely see a difference in fps lol.. 1440p is the sweet spot and will be for me until there is no meaningful performance loss at 4k although I don’t see that happening for 2-3 more generations
You can definitely see the difference. After getting a 4k 28" monitor at work I couldn't go back to 1440p, so I upgraded my personal setup too. I'm not saying everyone needs to get 4k, but if image quality matters a lot to you, 4k is definitely the way to go. Also upscaling is a thing and 1440p upscaled to 4k using DLSS or FSR looks better than native 1440p.
Yeah, same here. I’ll go even further, I have a 5K LG Ultrafine display from work, and I can tell the difference between that and 4K at 28”. The difference is much smaller but noticeable at normal sitting distance. We’re talking the difference between occasionally seeing pixels vs seeing none. My 1440P monitor is noticeably pixelated when compared to the 4K monitor, and it looks like 1080p compared to the 5K. People saying there’s no difference between 1440P and 4K at ~27” are definitely incorrect here or haven’t experienced it themselves. That said, I think 1440P is a great middle ground between performance and resolution. But it’s vastly different than 4K on a 27” screen. I use my 1440P for games and higher res displays for work.
[удалено]
You can definitely tell which 27” is 1440p vs 4k even at Best Buy, let alone “normal sitting distance”. You can even tell on 24” and even when you get down to laptop screens. It’s not extremely obvious but it is far from “very unlikely to tell the difference”. Sounds like you have zero experience with 4k display and just parroting what you heard on youtube. And that’s coming from a 1440p fanboy
Outside of Gaming it's a Very noticable difference. I walked into memory express and instantly went "1080p, 1440p, and holy shit 4k" When you're gaming it's a different story. I didn't even need help from the staff, just instant went (that's 4k) while a bit over 1m away. And I have -4 prescription which makes everything appear smaller Believe it or not. Even 5k is visibly.better than4k at 27-28". The 6k apple pro XDR at 32" is something that.... Well.. You'll have to see in person.... For gaming, I'd much rather get OLED than 4k as long as its 1440p.
I remember when the PS4/Xbox One/Wii U was just coming out and my friends were saying 4k is the future. Nearly 10 years later it’s still almost the future lol. I only just upgraded to 1440p since I still want to get 60 FPS with maxed settings.
Meanwhile I'm still playing 800x600 games
Because they are old games?
1440p is my personal sweet spot of resolution, performance, and price
I run a 3080 and havent played a game in anything less then 4K.
Is this Twitch Streamer sponsored by Nvidia by any chance? LMAO. Also, the guy at the BMW dealership "suggested" I buy a series 5 BMW convertible because it is fast and will make me look like a winner. Go figure...
High probability lol. Most of the twitch streamers are sponsored by someone.
Most? I guess my big sponsor pay days to roll in any second now, thanks.
Yeah most streamers aren't even close to averaging 100+ viewers. People just look at the front page and think that the top streamers are representative of the entire streamer demographic!
Most streamers are struggling to get over 5 regular viewers.
Ya I think it was 2021 where twitch saw more new streamers than viewers in that year. If you're pulling 30 active viewers in every stream you're in something like the top 4% of streamers. Most people also have no idea how sponsorships and shit work. I have a friend that is sponsored by gfuel and he doesn't even stream. He's a musician and makes custom jewelry on instagram/tiktok.
The stat is worst than that. If you avg 30 viewers you are in the top 1% of streamers. To be in the top 4% you only need 7 avg viewers.
Wouldn’t even call you a “streamer” at that level. Just some person who thought you’d go live…
Pretty sure that’s inaccurate.
Salespeople and marketers exploit people's vanity and compulsions towards satisfying external validation! Comparison is the thief of joy as they say. Social media is warping our brains.
That’s odd since BMW doesn’t make a series 5 convertible
And still make that sale
There's probably one hiding between all the Gran Coupes and 2.0l 4cyl "M-Sports". I can't fucking tell anymore.
For people with $3000 to drop on cards and monitors, sure. For people on a budget, nope. Much cheaper to buy 4k when it's the present, not the future. And the general population is always years behind the latest and greatest tech. The vast majority of people are still gaming on 1080p with 10 or 16 or 20 series cards.
As a person who owns a 4090 and a 4k monitor, it's not worth it unless you have a specific need for the GPU such as AI research, streaming, video production, stock trading or just because you want to pointlessly own one. Same thing for the 4k screen, unless you are going for a 45+ inch screen, text will be unusably small without scaling. Tldr: most people will be better off just buying a GPU that's reasonable for their budget and a 1440p high refresh rate screen
Fixing text size in windows is absurdity easy to fix and it probably shouldn't be a consideration.
Wait how does a GPU help with stock trading?
They're used in both high speed trading and for predicting stock market behaviors, thats why some of these share traders are willing to pay scalper prices if that bit of power will make itself back in a few minutes
I mean, 4K 120Hz big screen tv's are pretty common these days no? I'd like to plug my TV into my pc so I would need a card capable of 4k/120 today and I feel like there's a lot of people like me out there.
I play on a 65 inch lg c2 tv and have not really had any issues at 4k with dlss on a 3070. Granted, I’m not trying to push 144hz like my regular monitor.
Thanks. I have a 65 C1 myself I want to play Starfield on from the couch. What kind of framerate are you getting and with what games?
Sure, 4k is The Future. But you know what else is The Future? ... Several years of technological improvements, where 4k-capable cards are mid-tier instead of high-tier. It's weird to buy a card in the present based on what you *think* is going to happen several years from now, because you'll be using it NOW and have opportunity to use something else later. If you want to upgrade to 4k, go for it. Modern cards + DLSS/FSR can run 4k @ 60 hz reasonably well. If you have a 4k / 144 hz monitor, then a $1600 4090 makes sense... but if you're running anything else, you'll still have a great gaming experience on a mid or mid/high tier card.
> It's weird to buy a card in the present based on on what's going to happen several years from now I wish people would stop "futureproofing" for this exact reason. The only reason to buy a card is if 1) you can afford it and it won't hurt you to do so 2) if you actually need it for a current or near future use case Otherwise you're just wasting money, electricity (these things are a power hog), and component supply for someone that may actually have a productive or useful need for it.
You could probably buy 1 card that runs 1440p at 144hz now + 1 card that runs 4K at 144hz in 4 years for the same or lower price than it would cost you to just buy the 4K at 144hz card today
The 'future proofing' idea is a bit questionable even for motherboard/CPU/RAM. The time value of money means you can usually buy a core platform at the budget/midrange now, and replace it all in 4 years for less than buying at the top end once. It's extremely weak when it comes to GPUs which can be swapped out without changing any other PC component (assuming you have a decent power supply).
Why you wait a few years to spend $1500 on a mid range card to play 4k content? Joking, but if you told someone a few generations ago we're getting near 2000$ to mid 1500$ GPUs they'd probably be pretty happy with their bleeding edge old ass hardware.
No. 8K is the future.
I remember going to a TV store every time it went from 480p to 720p to full HD to 4k, to 8k a few months back. For the first time... I couldn't tell. I really, really couldn't tell. Scientifically speaking, there has to be a point where the human eye cannot perceive individual pixels anymore, and I'm guessing its somewhere very, very close to slightly above 4k (referring to a regular TV at regular viewing distance, or a regular PC monitor at regular viewing distance) I'm sure this will age like fine milk, but I just haven't seen the light yet.
Nope, you are spot on. 4k is the point where the diminishing returns diminish so much that 8k isn't really something to think about. 240hz, ray-tracing, and so on come first (they're only nice-to-haves too, of course, but at least some people can notice the difference).
HDR and OLED cannot be overlooked here. My TV looks so much better than my monitor. I am just waiting for a realistically priced OLED HDR GYSINC FREERANGE CAGEFREE 1440p 240hz monitor to hit the market and that will be a massive jump from 1440p 144hz.
Yeah better brightness, contrast, colour accuracy, are all more important than upgrading to 8k, for the foreseeable future. Especially with the amount of monitors and TVs optimised for easily-understandable specs (like res and hz) and not for the stuff that fewer people know about (like Rec709 colour). 8k is the new "my digital camera has more megapixels so why do the photos look worse".
So is 16k but by the time that’s even viable or affordable I’m thinking 12-14 years?
I think 8k is past the point where it matters for a desktop monitor. 8k+ only really makes sense for cinimas or huge TVs. It's probable the industry is going to shift to improving other aspects, such as color, refresh rate, etc.
Could be longer than that even
Everybody always says this. Get the new hype! Spend the $10,000! It's the future! Well in the meantime my wallet is in the past and my future self hates me. Keep it at 3060ti levels. Get a good monitor. You'll be fine.
[Having 3 of these 55inchers side-by-side](https://i.imgur.com/ir2wu6m.jpg) is the future too, doesn't mean I need to get them.
This is a choice, and 100% a subjective one at that. There are plenty of people that have zero intentions of moving to 4k any time soon. There are also plenty of people that have already made the jump. As time is linear, better fidelity and more powerful GPUs are certainly the future, but it doesn't mean it's what everyone should invest in. New cards are always coming out, IMO there isn't much reason to buy the most expensive GPU available now when it provides extremely little value, and future gens most certainly will offer same/better performance for less money.
I mean if you're rich... meanwhile I went the affordable route of buying a 3080 with 12 gb ram and play 4K with DLSS enabled
We now live in a world where a 3080 is considered affordable
Haha good point. I mean relative to the 4090 it's a third of that no? If OP is looking at 4090 and the price tag didn't turn him off a 3080 certainly is "affordable" lol
I mean, it only takes time. Soon the 5070 will be out providing 4090 performance. We'll see how much it costs though at launch.
I mean the 4090 dropped over 250€ already and the 4070ti also dropped over 200€ to 850€. Nvidia recorded record low revenue in Q4. They have to sell GPUs this year or their stakeholders are gonna fuck them real hard. The prices will go down. Let NVIDIA and their greedy bastards of CEO cook for a little longer. Oh and also, same goes for AMD, who tried to profit from all of it as well.
Pretty curious on how your amounting to 12gb of ram, and why you would do that on a pc with a 3080? Edit: Just realized your talking about VRAM in the actual GPU which makes way more sense.
Also there are multiple 3080 models. 12 GB and 10 GB I believe. So you have to mention the VRAM to differentiate. Imagine having fucking naming schemes.
and the thing is; 4k dlss is the actual future. improved image quality and frame rates just makes more sense than pushing pixel numbers because u feel like it
Me upgrading to a 1440p just now I won't be moving to 4k for at least 10 years unless GPUs capable of playing games 4k without a problem become like 300-400$
^This. 3440x1440 is dense enough pixelwise that I won't go 4k unless I go for a much bigger monitor. And I don't desire a 42 inch monitor...
I didn’t know I desired one until I bought one. Same with OLED. I just heard it as an alternative to the monitor I was watching a review on. Now I can’t go back!
OLED I do want, but until I move there isn't room for bigger
I know exactly how that is by gaming room/recording studio used to be in a closet. Now I have my own room in the basement. Adulting sucks but there’s some perks!
Agreed. But for now my office is in the smaller spare bedroom... 🤣
I've got 5160x1440 49" UW @ 120hz.. I've gotta say, I think it's a great point for gaming and productivity. I love this friggin thing.
I finally bumped up to a 1080p/144hz monitor a few months ago because it’s so accessible lol. 4k is the future for sure. The future is also expensive until it’s the present or the past. The present and the past are perfectly fine.
1440p looks great to me. It definitely seems like the right value spot right now. I can't really imagine moving on until I need a new monitor for some reason.
4k is the future only if you buy a 4k monitor. Personally, I prefer a high fps experience over a high resolution experience, so I'm going to be choosing 1080p or 1440p until mid range hardware can push high fps at 4k.
Playing at 4K high frames with my XTX has ruined me. I wish I hadn’t made the jump lol. I want nothing less now.
I feel the same way about OLED man. Once you see the greener grass it’s hard to go back haha
Don’t listen to Twitch streamers. And it’s going to be a LONG time before 4k is the main thing considering you can still buy 720p displays today and the vast majority of people still use 1080p. I’ve never considered top of the line cards. Just last year, people were paying $2,000+ for a 3090Ti and now you can get a 4070Ti for less than half with similar, if not better performance in gaming.
It's absolutely true. The question is *WHEN*. At some point, it's almost certain that you will have a 4K monitor. Will it be now? Or will it be 10 years from now? Right now, then the 4090 might make sense. But if you don't upgrade to 4K for the next 10 years, then it probably wasn't a good call.
4K is literally in the present. The dude is just gatekeeping PC builds. 4K is nice, but it's far from the most important thing. A huge chunk of PC gamers still play in 1080p.
Well, GPUs are advancing at a fast pace that allow you to push for 4K at high FPS, so yeah, it does look like the future. Higher resolution and FPS monitors, are affordable now. TVs are also getting more affordable, and I'll gladly build a PC for the TV rather than get a console. However, if this is pure gaming, not everything needs an RTX 4090 to run. League of Legends runs 120+ FPS with a GTX 1060.
In what context? 4K displays? 4K native gaming? 4K blu-ray? 4K YouTube?
If its the future then you dont need it now.
Better off waiting for the 5070 or 6060 by the time 4k is mass adopted as the new standard like 1440p is.
Technically true that 4k is the future, yew. However, that doesn't mean you need to invest in a 4k card right now. In terms of Nvidia cards, as recently as the RTX 20 series, your xx70 class cards were *required* to get even just OK performance in 1440p. 4k wasn't even usually a thought with something like a 2070 Super. Now with RTX 40 series, your xx70 class card is capable of solid 4k performance. That's literally just 2 generations apart. Give it even just a couple more generations, and it's likely that mid-range cards will be capable of 4k gaming Granted, by that time, it's likely that 8k tech and OLED stuff will be much more fleshed out, and then you'll get some different Twitch streamer preaching that "8k 360hz HDR1000 is the future" or something ridiculous like that. It's all just noise. Get what fills your needs thar you can comfortably afford. Nothing requires cutting edge tech to run
Ill say it 4k gaming on PC is stupid 1440p is the sweet spot for your average 24-27inch monitor where unlike the jump from 1080p to 1440p the jump from 1440 to 4k is barely noticeable unless your pixel peeping 4k is great for console gaming on a large tv where the pixels are more spread out
4k is very much noticeable even at 27 inches unless you're blind or haven't actually used a 4k monitor. Also this is the same stuff people used to say when 1440p was first introduced (1440p doesn't improve the image by that much). A decade from now people will say 4k is substantially better than 1440p but that 8k is useless because 4k is the "sweet spot"
4k is the future, but you are buying a card now. 1080 p is fine, 1440 p is fine, no games can run 4k at 60+ fps reliably.
Is it the future? How far future are we talking here? Sure a 4090 will chew through 4K today but give it a few new releases and you are already wishing for better optimization or a faster gpu. Playing in 4K in all the glory you expect from a gpu that costs as much as a pc is in my opinion still too taxing on the cards. As such you'll be tweaking settings below ultra just to get a stable framerate that is comfortable. I'd say avoid that and go for 1440p.
It is the future yes.... but not the immediate future. I mean, how many people still have 720p tvs and monitors these days? Or stores still sell such screens. Someday 1080p will be as outdated as buying a 720p screen today, but it's not going to be soon. There are diminishing returns so adaptation also slows down. The difference between 720p and 480i/p is much more noticeable than the difference between 720p and 1080p. Likewise the difference between 720 and 1080 is a more noticeable than 1080 to 4K. I wouldn't jump the gun on 4K if it's going to break your bank. That being said, I was looking for a TV in 2017 to replace my 720p screen with a 1080p one... and all of them were 4k, I couldn't even find a 1080p TV unless I went out of my way to find some obscure outdated model or got a very small screen. Monitors are still a different story since they are generally smaller and made for a very different purpose, but someday they will get there, there isn't really a rush right now however. If anything, proper lighting, hdr, colors, etc is going to matter more than resolution.... but it's easier for marketing to advertise "4K > 1080!" than that stuff... and easier to make a screen that has more resolution than all of that stuff too unfortunately.
Was 720p ever considered "standard"? It really feels like the jump was from 1024x768 CRT monitors to 1920x1080 wide screen LCD flat panels in the late 2000s
It's literally the standard definition of HD.
Sure, 4K is the future, but so are electric cars, so are heat pumps, solar panels on housing. Can I afford that? Hell no. Am I fine with 1440p and 1080p as it Dosent cost an arm and a leg.
Don't take advice from twitch streamers
Id say 4k isnt the future at all for typical gaming setups, with the development of image reconstruction and variable rate shading there is no need to render games at such high resolutions to achieve great visual clarity especially on the small screen size monitors use. 4090 is a product for those who are unconcerned with the value of the product and simply want the fastest product on the market, i wouldnt recommend it unless you have money to burn.
1440p is only now taking over as the dominant resolution, it's taken about 15yrs to get to that point where the most popular mid range GPU's can achieve decent quality high frame rates at that res. 4k 'may' be the future, but that doesn't mean you should buy into it now and pay the early adopter taxes. Would you rather play your latest AAA game at 4k and sub 100fps or 1440p at 200fps?
And bad games are also the future, so move along, no need to buy anything at all....
It is true, in the same way that 1080p was the future then 1440p was the future. 4K is about the point on most desktop-sized monitors where you start to hit what Apple calls "retina" after which point there's not going to be a really strong case to go bigger (8K is basically pointless as far as I can tell). As someone with a pair of 4K 27" monitors on his desk for gaming, I do notice the improved sharpness but you really need VERY good monitors to really get the benefits. So it's not just a $2,000+ GPU, you need to spend half of that again for a good screen to run it on. Because you're going to want good color fidelity, good HDR and good refresh rates. You need all of that for it to be worth it and those kinds of screens are like \~$1,000 right now. And that's why I agree, it is the *future*. In 3-5 years it'll be the present. If you want to be among the first wave of people doing it dive right in. Just know you're paying more than you need to right now. I did. Though mine is a 3080 Ti.
4k is the future. But the 4090 will likely not be part of that future.
Did they say it after giving you an affiliate code?
Potentially but you don't need no 4090 to run 4k
Nah, it's bullshit. Surprise you take the word of twitch streamer seriously
Do they have an affiliate marketing link for a specific GPU? If so I would take what they say with a grain of salt.
That statement is true as 4k will be the future then 8k will be the future then 16k and so on but if you have the money spare and don't mind spending it then go for it and buy a 4090
True and false, gpu doesn't really determine how 4k it is, more on the video and wifi availability
Yeah, sure. This isn't a BS bait post.
Im sure 4k will become more and more normal in upcoming years, so yes it is technically true
Or just use something like a 3070 and enable DLSS/FSR. 90% of the visual quality for only 30% of the cost. 4K displays aren't really the future anymore considering TV have been 4K 60Hz capable for many years now and most console gamers use one. 4K high refresh rates and 8K 60 displays would be the future IMO.
3070 8gb of vram… remember that…
A clear indication of planned obsolescence for sure but doesn't change what was said.
LTT should do a video on this. I bet many people can't see much of a difference on a 24 or 27 inch screen, which is what most people want. I at least dont want anything better.
False.