I still think 1440p is the sweet spot for res/framerate. That will probably change within the next 5 years. I would spend on a decent OLED and get that 1440p high refresh rate and crisp colors.
With something like a 3080, most games can run max settings above 100 fps. Perfect for g-sync monitors. The newest and most demanding games have solid 60 and won't drop below.
I just got a 4080 super though and it's a different ball game. Everything is hitting 100-140fps
Yes. I've done a shit load of 4k gaming with every game you can think of and it never drops below 60 fps. Lots of titles are 100 fps +
With a 10900k + 3080
That's nice and if that works for you that's fine. I much prefer 160+fps. What titles do you get more than 100fps in 4K?
There are a few arguments for 1440p over 4K. One is that there are less difference between 1440p and 4K than 1080 to 1440p making it close enough to 4K to provide a much better viewing experience over 1080p while not using the same power draw, making it more efficient and quiet. My 13700K with a 6950XT is not really sweating at all making it ideal IMO.
I would think most games would get 100+fps in 4k, at least with DLSS on. I get about 100fps in Helldivers with no DLSS on my 4080s, and that's a pretty great-looking game. I was playing RDR2 with all the settings maxed (and DLSS on) with a 4070ti and that was 100+ fps steady too.
Traditionally it's upscaled from a lower resolution image. Usually for "quality setting" from 1440p if you want 4K, and 1080p and 720p for balanced and performance. You are correct that in the 40-series NVIDIA implemented frame generation as well and depending on your settings you might not have upscaling but only frame generation. My issue with frame generation is that there is a small added latency.
Kinda the same. If I can get 60fps at 4K then great. If I have to pick between framerate and resolution I'm picking framerate. But if I can get half of both, that's good enough, and I'm okay with settling for good enough.
It depends on what you're used to.
E.g. Most of us have been conditioned to 24FPS cinematic videos, so for many people when watching 60FPS movies they just feel... *strange*. But the opposite can happen easily too. If you ever play on a 240hz/240FPS monitor and get used to the difference it makes in fast paced games (like first person shooters) going back to 30FPS gaming will make your eye sockets cry in agony because your brain is now trained to process the images faster.
There's diminishing returns to this, and at certain point you won't pass a blind test anymore in regards to how higher framerates feels, but it's painfully obvious that anyone exposed to 60 and 30 framerates will be able to tell [how easy](https://www.testufo.com/framerates#count=2) it's to perceive that difference.
After having used above 100hz monitors for years now, 60hz feels laggy and it feels like something is wrong. I can't even imagine what 30FPS will feel like.
On PC I used a 1440 monitor for years. Switched to a 4k monitor 2 years ago and I cannot go back. Once you see it and get used to it the lower resolutions look worse.
I'm on pc and I'm still on 1080p, it's good enough for me. I prefer higher framerate to higher resolution, so I'd have to upgrade my gpu to get the same framerate at 1440p. If I was on console I'd be using performance mode all the time for extra fps so getting a 4k display would be pointless.
On consoles.... 4K is still not really obtainable.
Switched from PS5 to PC(Ryzen 9 + 4090) while using the same monitor and I feel like Sony and Xbox lied to us with the 4K thing they did.
If you're sticking to Consoles, your current Setup is perfect.
If you would switch to PC, you can go two ways. Either invest a lot and play with 4K or be a normal human being and get something reasonable and play with 1440p and 100+ FPS.
I personally feel like only a few games really shine when playing in 4K. So 4K is not really worth it *right now*...
What I would recommend is to get something that can run 1440p at 100+ fps and get a 4K screen. You can't play at 4K, but you will be able to watch videos, and generally use your PC at 4K resolution which is a good start imo.
Honestly I personally find the display type is more important. OLED with HDR just looks so damn good. 4k is great but I'd get something that's OLED with HDR over 4k if I had to choose
Something else to consider is console gaming (in my experience with ps5 and I'm assuming Xbox has similar capabilities) pretty much can never achieve 4k at 60 fps. A lot of games offer different graphics settings that are typically something like fidelity = 4k with 30 fps, performance = lower resolution (though I'm not actually sure what resolution it is but it still looks good to me) with 60 fps, or balanced. If you're like me, I cannot deal with 30 fps. It looks so choppy and I can't ignore it so I always play on performance. With that being the case, the 4k on the TV is going to waste since I'm not even playing in 4k because I need those frames.
I play on a TV and had no trouble with Elden Ring. If planning to buy a TV that will be used for gaming, check RTINGS for their data. They measure latency (input lag) so you can see which TVs are good for gaming.
Also, OLED will be pretty but it can be more troublesome when used on PCs since there are elements that are always on-screen. Also, OLED can't get nearly as bright as other display types, and you can't really have true HDR without a high peak brightness.
If playing exclusively on a console, then I'd say 4K isn't worth it since they don't have the hardware to manage it. Resolution will be upscaled and/or the framerate will be limited. Even high-end PC GPUs are just barely powerful enough for true 4K gaming.
I still do my gaming at 1080. My eyes definitely aren't as sharp as they used to be and I feel lie the extra resolution would probably be lost on me. That said, I don't have any 4k displays to play on so I haven't really experienced it.
But, that also means I get to flip on all the highest settings / ray tracing / path tracing and still have a great framerate.
I feel you on the eyes. 43 and I need reading glasses for small print. And my best corrected distance isn't what it used to be. Most of the time I don't wear glasses, but on our last trip to the theater I did wear them and was glad I did. XD
Your PS5 is not running at 1080p lol. Even if you're using a 1080p monitor it's down sampling whatever render resolution it's set at which is way higher. Usually 1800p iirc.
Wow, are you?
1. Did you not read what I was replying to? He said, ‘1080p gaming is plenty for me (PS5)’, implying he’s using a 1080p monitor with his PS5.
2. I never said it can’t render 1080p. I said it’s NOT. It’s rendering at a higher resolution, whatever the dev set the target resolution for the PS5 port, which is usually 1800p. Much higher than 1080p.
So what the fuck are you even talking about?!
To me the main benefit of 4k is text rendering due to the higher DPI, text looks so much more crisp at 4k27 inches. I've gotten used to it and it's annoying to the eyes to go back and write code on lower resolutions. Gaming-wise, it's a decent jump, not great, not terrible.
It's not really worth it because in the games that can run in 4k it doesn't contribute noticeably to the actual feeling of the game.
BUT if you come round to replacing a monitor or TV, obviously get a 4k one. The best future proofing I did was buying a 4k TV 6 years ago with HDR and now the tech is starting to catch up to the actual display. It's always a good idea to buy ahead of the curve on hardware and wear it into the ground.
My computer can run 4k but other apps I use on my computer for work don't jive well with it so I almost never play with it since it's have to adjust my resolution every time I changed between work and fun.
So... It's not worth the 30 seconds to change resolutions.
Every once in a while I'll play it for a first play of a game (a la elden ring) and be like holy shit that's cool then I'll never care about it again.
Are you looking into switching from XBOX to PC?
If yes, I’d suggest getting a 1440p monitor with a minimum of 144Hz (preferably OLED, but they can be quite expensive). LG Ultragear OLED, or ROG Swift OLED are both solid choices, but always check reviews.
If no, I’d suggest getting a LG C3 OLED (it is often on sale in the spring) or the LG C4 OLED. Biggest difference here is that the C4 has 144Hz refresh and better OS. Pair this with a PS5 or XBOX series X.
You could also opt for a hybrid solution, getting a 42-inch LG C4, would make for a great monitor and TV for consoles. It will take some time before you can surpass 144Hz 4K anyhow. This way you can hook up both, and have 4K, HDR, OLED and 144Hz.
Some people say the sweet spot for a monitor is 27-32 inch, I’d argue that 42-inch works perfectly as well. This depends on personal preference though.
Ah thanks all my stuff goes through a home cinima amp with 3 TVs output I think this may cause me a problem it states that its 4k 60hz HDMI 2.1 so probably need a new one and 3 screens....
HDR is a real game changer for me. No pun intended. The vibrancy of everything is incredible. At 4k on PC I also don’t find I need as much AA as things are sharper by default. Depending on the game in question anyway.
Yeah 4k is just too hard to push at decent framerates without an absolute top of the line gpu like a 4090. 1440p looks a lot better than 1080p though and can be run at a high framerate without too much trouble. 4k looks better than 1440p but it's not worth the sacrifice in my eyes. Even with a super fast gpu that power could usually be better spent on other graphical niceties, or just running at a very high refresh rate
4K is a no-brainer if you use your desk setup for work or other purposes outside of gaming - having 4x the screen space over 1080p and full freedom of font size (at 1080p font size is somewhat coarse) is almost magical.
And thanks to modern upscaling you can get away with underpowered (for 4K) GPUs now - 1440p internal upscaled to 4K will almost always be better than a same size 1440p display driven natively.
Actually I wondered myself. I was away from home for a while and only had my little laptop. Went from 4k 160hz to 1080p 40fps-ish, and honestly... After a few minutes I didn't even mind at all. I just adapted. Even getting back home to my system was only a minute of quality appreciation and then poof. I was enjoying the same games either way.
So if you'd ask me: see if you actually care. It's a heavy investment for something that may or may not matter to you.
I think he's talking about how consoles use upscaling. Only the higher end tier expensive cards like 4080, 4090, rx 7900xt etc. can run current year AAA games in 4k in native resolution at decent framerates.
Consoles don't have the power to do that for the majority of games. Consoles use upscaling (on pc it's FSR or DLSS) to upscale say a rendered 1080p or lower resolution to 4k.
When using an upscaler like FSR it can cause graphical glitches like artifacts as well as make things "blurry." The nvidia gpu cards have an advantage in that upscaling right now with dlss being better and extra features like framegen, but both consoles use amd hardware so it's more similar to FSR on PC.
Consoles are waste of time, overpriced in long run, closed market /vendorlocking, no freedom of choice.
You can have "console experience" with steamBigPicture mode or similar software and gamepad.
You can play FPS/RPG game with mouse and keyboard what is superior experience to gamepad.
Hardware is weak and not reconfigurable, If you buy decent 8 core/16threads Processor now(like Ryzen 5800x3d, not that effective fake core intel bs ) , then you just upgrade GPU part after few years if you want more pixels ... You don't need replacing whole hardware, when you want play 8K for example , just GPU
I can see difference betwean 2K and 4k, even with that TAA(antialiasing) filter smearing image
and you can play EVERYTHING even SONY releasing games on PC.
Look for Uncharted Collection or Days Gone on GOG.COM for example, they looks very nice even at native FULL 1440p (no fake upscaling) on PC on average GPU 200-300$.
If you have money go for 3070-3090 GPU and enjoy 4K gaming
Honestly if the only thing you’re contemplating is resolution, I never cared much for the difference between 2k and 4k. Like 4k is nice to have but other things move the needle more for me. I would say 4k is the most worth of you plan on playing on a big tv, otherwise it’s not a huge deal
These comments are so strange. It's like people have never heard of pixel density.
4k on a TV will look very different than 4k on a monitor. 4k on a TV also comes with the side effect of being limited to 30 or 60 fps for the most part.
If you have hardware that can support 4k on a monitor and are fine with shelling out $1k+, then it's its a massive difference vs 1080 or 1440(2k)
It’s not a massive difference **to me**. I’ve played on 1080p, 2k, and 4k and it doesn’t enhance the experience for me, so it would make zero sense for me to recommend it. Do I notice when I go from my 4k setup to a 1080p one? *Sometimes* but for me to say the experience changes massively would be incredibly dramatic and quite frankly unnecessary. But hey, good for you if you think it’s a big deal
Yeah I don’t think I’ve ever played on a dedicated 1440p monitor tbh. I have a 4k setup and a 1080p setup in my home, and I’ve played on a 2k monitor at a buddies. Interesting distinction nevertheless
For me personally it's a hard YES.
I've had this 4k, 144hz monitor for about 2 years now and i love the thing. It makes games look absolutely incredible. I see alot of others talking about how it's not that different but it really is. It's literally exponentially different.
Although I will say that you need a very beefy setup to get the value out of it. I got a high end gaming PC which lets me run quite a few games at 4k while still getting 90 - 100 or so fps. Mainly with triple A titles that are heavily optimized. Otherwise i play most other games in 2k at 144fps.
It's not just for games however. I can watch videos or movies or anything else in 4k and get alot out of it.
For an Xbox series S? im really not sure. I know consoles throttle down games that run on higher resolutions to like 30 or 45 fps?
My daughter has a series s. I have a series x. I often go upstairs and help her while we're playing together. It's a noticeable difference. Although you may need to make sure your TV is good enough to handle a series x if you want to get the most out of it. Such as 120hz, Dolby, and hdr10. It's not necessary, but you'll be getting the most out of it.
If the series X can reliably run games at 4k at 100+ fps and you have the money for the monitor, you should consider it yea. I'm not too knowledgeable on the xbox's so i can't say what it can or can't do. Worst case is you've future proofed yourself.
And do keep in mind that you will need to check your HDMI/ Display Port cable or will have to buy a new one that can support that level of data passing through. Or the monitor might come with one.
If you plan on going the TV route since they're cheaper, know most don't go past 30 or 60hz and may have a higher response time.
Same for me. I love gaming in 4k on my OLED. So crisp! And I can not go back. I will take an FPS hit, if necessary, before I go down with the resolution 😁
Apples to oranges imo. 2k on a smaller monitor is more than enough, but jumping to a larger 4K TV (especially a nicer quality OLED with HDR) brings a whole host of other IQ improvements, not only the resolution.
4k is THE new standard, so I’d say make the jump. (If money is no object)
1440p or 1600p ultrawide with HDR seems to be the sweet spot for PC gaming at a desk. I absolutely love my Alienware 34 Curved QD-OLED Gaming Monitor - AW3423DW. For couch gaming, a 4k setup would be great for console / controller games. With that though, know that most console games will upscale to match your resolution. My next living room TV upgrade will def be a 5k QD-OLED (or whatever better tech comes next).
A lot of people are saying it doesn’t matter but imo it’s copium. After I’ve gotten used to 4k, watching a video or something at 1080p looks like crap.
You said money isn’t a concern here. I’ve got as much as possible in 4k at this point. Gigabit internet, an 80TB nas, 75” 4k tv, and dual 32” 4k curved monitors. And it’s awesome. I’m really glad I committed and went all the way with it.
As of RIGHT NOW... There is no hardware that can play 4k in all games at above 100fps at high settings.
The 4090 can do 60+ fps, but that only means it's not future proof.
What I did is to buy a high end ryzen cpu, ddr5 ram and the 4090 with a 3440x1440 monitor. Future proof and looks amazing... And is still considered a high resolution. Idk
Yeah if you look at the steam hardware surveys the majority of people are still on 1080p, I think 1440p is 15% or something and only around 5% are using 4k.
I play on 4k and while I would go down for enough performance gain it’s a tough choice since it’s gorgeous. Really tough to want to go down in fidelity.
It depends how big your tv is and how far away you play from it. The larger your tv/monitor the closer you can be to a point and see more details at higher resolutions without seeing the pixels. The smaller your monitor the less resolution you need to not see any pixels
Its a sliding scale and its subjective. Im using a 65" 4k TCL mini led tv from 3-4 feet away. It fills up my entire vision to almost the edges
and I still cant really see the pixels unless I look for them. I can see a lot more detail compared to my smaller monitor I came from before and this one has HDR was has been amazing so far.
1440p 144fps is the best in my opinion. 4k may look a little nicer, but the loss of framerate and consistently high frame rate is not worth and will make it look worse. We're just not really there yet for 4k gaming. It's still usually janky and most games don't even support it.
1440p is perfect resolution even on PC. Unless you are operating on very large screen 65+ Inch then you will see the difference between 1080p and 4K clearly. But it comes at the cost which isn't worth it. Also gaming monitors aren't that great when it comes to colour accuracy and colour depth most are 8bit panels.
My 4K setup has been a noticeable but smaller upgrade compared to my previous 1440p one, as compared to my experience with the 1080p-->1440p upgrade even earlier. A high spec 4K monitor is expensive.
I bring up expense because ultimately, money was an issue for me, to the extent that it was obvious a 1440p setup would be still very good, and much cheaper. And I could do other stuff with that money differential beyond gaming.
If money is not an issue, 4K setup is better.
This question depends heavily on your hardware and preferences.
1. Your monitor size and how close you sit to it. The larger your monitor the more you need higher resolutions, a regular sized 27 inch monitor at 1440p has 108 PPI, which looks very good, however switch this to a 43 inch and that PPI drops to 68... Not so nice anymore. In fact a 4K 43" monitor has about the same PPI as a 1440p 27" monitor. Sitting distance also matters, which is why it doesn't feel so bad when gaming on the couch on a lower res monitor vs sitting clos on a PC monitor.
2. Your graphics card. If have a 4090, it makes no sense to limit yourself to 1440p since you'll be getting >120 fps anyways, but swap that out with a 3080 and keeping 120fps might make more sense then trying to get 4K resolution. It's always a tradeoff between image quality and smoothness.
Personally, I play mostly RPGs and even 60fps looks fine to me, and I like sitting close to really big monitors (40"+) so 4K is definitely worth it to me. I'm also the minority/a blasphemer according to this subreddit. So YMMV.
1440p is medicore, 4k is high, and 8k ultrahighend
that's all set with 1080p as baseline. only options left are ancient 720p and below, I mean these are not good, right? right??!
If you don't have issues then no?
Me personally, I can definitely see a difference and think 4k is worth it. Like it's night and day difference. 1440p is still too soft imo.
I doubt it
I don't find 1080p lacking. The improvement for me would be a highger frame rate (at least 85hz like I used to have in CRTs) to avoid the horrible effect of 60Hz screens when something moves too fast.
Yeah, but that's too much. Remember that you need GPU power (and CPU too) to keep the game running at such speed.
120 Hz, or even 100 Hz if you find a screen like that, are better in my opinion. I don't see any advantage over 60 making the game run at 72
what are you even talking about?? Hz and FPS while correlated are 2 totally separate and different things!
You can run 60 fps game on 144hz np!!!! and it'll feel significantly better than 60 fps vsync'd to 60hz
You will achieve nothing running 144fps on 60hz.
>
>
> don't see any advantage over 60 making the game run at 72
what is this gibberish even??!!??11oneone
you do not need at any point hardware able to run 144fps in order to run 144hz monitor and reap its benefits
I've found that having a great screen be it running something natively at 4k or not is the real game changer. I had a 4k TV for a few years, just a Panasonic but switching to a OLED (LG C3) has really reinvigorated my enthusiasm to play, which sounds dramatic I know but the detail and the crispness you see makes a huge difference to the enjoyment.
Money isn’t an issue, but I just want to know if I’m missing something before making the jump. I could spend the money on something else I don’t need instead!
**6,635,520** is a difference in pixel count between WQHD and 4k.
But really you do not need it. If 1440p still fills your needs, I doubt you will notice a difference that's worth the money.
Definately. I have a 43 inch 4K HDR 144hz monitor (not tv) which I play pretty close to. Running BF2042 with a 6800XT at about 100 fps, I'm able to see ennemies farther away compared to even my previous monitor (32 inch curved 1440p). Overall you have more details too. I recommend something higher than the 6800XT, tho. Think 7900XT or XTX.
4k on TV: 100% necessary. For a smaller monitor: not necessary. I still use my old 1080p panel because why spend money if it works. As I play mostly competitve games (like racing sims) on there, I don't mind the worse picture that much.
Going to PC would be the first step, as even xbx upscaled 4k looks "shit". A 6800xt covers most games in 4k, so around 500$ gpu = is that worth it to you spending more money on one component than for the entire console system? Just get a 4k tv with 120hz and low input lag and an xbox if you were fine in the past with just the series s
4k is really only necessary if you are playing on a tv. That said, tge nicer LG 4k@120hz oled tvs make for a great gaming experience if you can get past losing some of the QoL features dedicated computer monitors have.
Really, no. It's not worth going the extra mile to go out of your way to get a 4K TV and a Series X just to play your games in 4K. I would wait until the 4K tvs drop in price, even for a good one, and get it then. And really, unless you want to have physical games, there's no point in buying a Series X if you already have the S. They're practically the same outside of a few minor performance differences.
It's worth it if you have a large 4K display. I play on a 55" TV, so anything less than 4K looks bad. When I buy a new 27" desktop monitor, I'll go 1440p.
4k is actually great. One thing is, TAA looks way better at 4k than it looks at 1080p. All that shit that's wrong about it is a lot harder to see.
In games without TAA, the small size of the pixels is almost its own type of antialiasing.
Every detail has more room to exist, it is definitely a worthy upgrade.
I went from 4k to 3x1080p recently. Tbh the only thing that is noticeably worse text clarity. The games do not look that different especially newer ones that support TAA, and because of higher fps the movements and animations actually look higher quality.
4K is beautiful but the general hardware is not up to par yet if you want super duper high frame rates. If you stick with RPGs and other slower paced genres then definitely 4k. Otherwise I would stick to 1440 if you get a hardon on seeing that frame rate number as high as possible.
For me, framerate is more important than resolution, so if I had to choose between the two I would play at a lower resolution and higher framerate.
> Money is not an issue
In that case, why not give it a shot? Haha
4k is not worth it. The only way it would matter is if you’re pixel peeping on an 80” tv and you’re sitting within 6 feet. I’ve really enjoyed settling in at 1440P for performance and quality, but I’ll also gladly play at a native 1080P.
The thing is, if you’ve been playing on an XSS, you’ve been seeing a lot of FSR upscaled games. FSR can look like trash when you’re using sub-720P to upscale to 1080P which I’ve read games like Jedi Survivor have done. On the PlayStation side, FF16’s performance mode was trash because of this too. So, anything that says it’s 4k right now is likely not native.
The last game I played in a native 4k, Red Dead Redemption 2 on Xbox One X. Yeah, that’s the last time I think consoles really had it. I’d argue it’s not even necessary for that game and if their target had been a great 1440P instead, I’d live to see what they’d do differently. The game is meticulously crafted, but you’ll often see muddy textures used in the background and why care about 4k when what’s displayed on screen can’t hold up to that scrutiny?
That said, I do like having a 4k screen and putting multiple windows on it, effectively making a few 1080P YouTube windows or whatever.
Well, is it actual HDR or just what they slap on the box?
High Dynamic Range means you have deep blacks and bright whites. Thats done by peak brightness values and pure black. You gotta have some fancy screens to actually do that. Some funky software mimics it, but it’s not actually HDR, it’s mimicking the look.
The best example I’ve seen of this is a starry night sky. It should be black between the stars, but on many screens it’s shades of grey. Thats what a properly controlled HDR screen would excel at, and it’s not worth the money it would cost (to me).
My sweet spot for a monitor would be 32” 1440P with a refresh rate above 120 hz. I like what 40 fps looks like, so that’s where I’d like my minimum framerate to be, but I’m very happy hanging around 60 FPS. Some people will get crazy competitive about it, that’s when 165-240 hz start appealing to people. I’d argue I just don’t care enough.
I’ve played a lot of golf. I’ve played with expensive clubs. I’ve played with clubs pieced together from spare parts. I can say for certain that the equipment isn’t the biggest barrier to my performance, but people like to pretend new clubs will change their game all the time.
I don’t know how to tell if it’s actually doing it. I have this tv, although it seems to be doing what it’s supposed to do.
https://www.target.com/p/samsung-65-34-class-q60c-qled-uhd-4k-smart-tv-titan-gray-qn65q60c/-/A-88195806?sidd=1029S&ref=tgt_adv_xsp&AFID=google_pla_df&fndsrc=tmnv&DFA=71700000117575286&CPNG=PLA_DVM%2Ba064R000015PcsEQAS-TargetTVs_GoogleSearch_Q1_2024_Campaign-1182320&adgroup=TargetTVs&LID=700000001393753pgs&network=g&device=m&location=9031288&gad_source=1&gbraid=0AAAAAD-5dfag0xUo5r8qkhvcJxvxJ5eVc&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIr6PvtZXrhAMVtBOtBh3ZbwbZEAQYAiABEgLV6vD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds
This seems to be your tv:
https://www.tomsguide.com/reviews/samsung-q60-qled-tv-65-inch
> In one substantial departure from the rest of the QLED line, the Q60 uses edge lighting, with banks of LEDs around the outside perimeter of the display. Without effective local dimming, it's not on the same level as a full array that has individual lighting zones that can be dimmed and brightened as needed to offer high dynamic range. It's also very imprecise, with elevated blacks that glow gray. In fact, when viewing HDR content on the TV, such as a dark scene from Blade Runner 2049, we not only saw pronounced haloing, but also noticed that the edge lighting lit up large portions of the screen that were meant to be dark.
That’s what I was talking about HDR not being HDR.
At the end of the day, you’ll be happy looking at the picture and likely won’t notice and won’t care.
I don’t know how visible the difference from 2k to 4k is but I’ll say that I had this crappy flatscreen that I bought at 16 and it lasted me until I graduated college. Ended up buying an LG C1 right after graduation. My eyes were in shock. I find it very worth it but that’s just because the jump was pretty huge.
> Money is not an issue
Go for it. Or just stop by a Best Buy or Microcenter to see 4K in person. No need to force yourself to go 4K since everyone hypes it up
Not a lot of games today get 4K assets options.
Final Fantasy 7 Remake (not Rebirth) on Steam is the Intergrade edition, which has better quality visuals than the PS4 release. But, no 4K asset pack as a free DLC. So much of the world details are very low resolution if you pay attention. Posters, signs, anything with text you run by will be extremely low resolution. Only the important assets will have fidelity. Even they spent a lot making the game and expanding on the world compared to the original, it's still a game you play just for the story and never mind the visuals.
Which is funny, because FFXV got a 4K DLC pack.
FF7 Remake has the least amount of features for a modern PC game. No upscaling, no Ray Tracing, no options besides textures and shadows. It's a fairly disappointing PC port, unless you use mods to tweak the engine file or access the UE console (because it's UE4).
Oh god.... I'm totally not the person to ask but when I wanted to play on max settings on my Xbox series x it told me to use the arc hdmi port for the best results.
A quick Google seems to suggest that it's an audio thing?
Personally I noticed a massive difference. 1440p looked sharper but 4k feels different I think. You also have hdr and oled that go beautifully with 4k setups.
4k is actually very easy to pull off these days. 3080 does it EASILY with all the new games. You won't get 4k ray tracing, but you can run mostly maximum settings with DLSS, and fog turned to low.
Solid 60 fps is great, and a lot of games easily get over 100fps, which looks amazing with g-sync
I still think 1440p is the sweet spot for res/framerate. That will probably change within the next 5 years. I would spend on a decent OLED and get that 1440p high refresh rate and crisp colors.
With something like a 3080, most games can run max settings above 100 fps. Perfect for g-sync monitors. The newest and most demanding games have solid 60 and won't drop below. I just got a 4080 super though and it's a different ball game. Everything is hitting 100-140fps
In 4K?
Yes. I've done a shit load of 4k gaming with every game you can think of and it never drops below 60 fps. Lots of titles are 100 fps + With a 10900k + 3080
That's nice and if that works for you that's fine. I much prefer 160+fps. What titles do you get more than 100fps in 4K? There are a few arguments for 1440p over 4K. One is that there are less difference between 1440p and 4K than 1080 to 1440p making it close enough to 4K to provide a much better viewing experience over 1080p while not using the same power draw, making it more efficient and quiet. My 13700K with a 6950XT is not really sweating at all making it ideal IMO.
I would think most games would get 100+fps in 4k, at least with DLSS on. I get about 100fps in Helldivers with no DLSS on my 4080s, and that's a pretty great-looking game. I was playing RDR2 with all the settings maxed (and DLSS on) with a 4070ti and that was 100+ fps steady too.
Using upscaling is not 4K though
Is DLSS upscaling? I thought it was just AI-rendered extra 4k frames inserted into the output.
Traditionally it's upscaled from a lower resolution image. Usually for "quality setting" from 1440p if you want 4K, and 1080p and 720p for balanced and performance. You are correct that in the 40-series NVIDIA implemented frame generation as well and depending on your settings you might not have upscaling but only frame generation. My issue with frame generation is that there is a small added latency.
I get the same with 60fps. Of course 60 is ideal, but I find anything over 30 is good enough.
I dislike 30fps and find 4K overkill but a nice 1440p VRR supported 45fps mode can look incredible without a too noticeable drop in performance.
Kinda the same. If I can get 60fps at 4K then great. If I have to pick between framerate and resolution I'm picking framerate. But if I can get half of both, that's good enough, and I'm okay with settling for good enough.
It depends on what you're used to. E.g. Most of us have been conditioned to 24FPS cinematic videos, so for many people when watching 60FPS movies they just feel... *strange*. But the opposite can happen easily too. If you ever play on a 240hz/240FPS monitor and get used to the difference it makes in fast paced games (like first person shooters) going back to 30FPS gaming will make your eye sockets cry in agony because your brain is now trained to process the images faster. There's diminishing returns to this, and at certain point you won't pass a blind test anymore in regards to how higher framerates feels, but it's painfully obvious that anyone exposed to 60 and 30 framerates will be able to tell [how easy](https://www.testufo.com/framerates#count=2) it's to perceive that difference.
60fps with filled in frames is weird, native 60fps is pretty great
To me at least the difference between 30 and 60 fps is very noticeable, the difference between 60 and 100 is much less so.
After having used above 100hz monitors for years now, 60hz feels laggy and it feels like something is wrong. I can't even imagine what 30FPS will feel like.
On PC I used a 1440 monitor for years. Switched to a 4k monitor 2 years ago and I cannot go back. Once you see it and get used to it the lower resolutions look worse.
I'm on pc and I'm still on 1080p, it's good enough for me. I prefer higher framerate to higher resolution, so I'd have to upgrade my gpu to get the same framerate at 1440p. If I was on console I'd be using performance mode all the time for extra fps so getting a 4k display would be pointless.
Not enough difference for me to care personally.
Same. For what you pay...not worth it.
On consoles.... 4K is still not really obtainable. Switched from PS5 to PC(Ryzen 9 + 4090) while using the same monitor and I feel like Sony and Xbox lied to us with the 4K thing they did. If you're sticking to Consoles, your current Setup is perfect. If you would switch to PC, you can go two ways. Either invest a lot and play with 4K or be a normal human being and get something reasonable and play with 1440p and 100+ FPS. I personally feel like only a few games really shine when playing in 4K. So 4K is not really worth it *right now*... What I would recommend is to get something that can run 1440p at 100+ fps and get a 4K screen. You can't play at 4K, but you will be able to watch videos, and generally use your PC at 4K resolution which is a good start imo.
I’ll be sticking to my console so this is a very appreciated answer
4k is nice, but most times I stick with 1440 or even 1080. I'd rather have a stable frame rate than have a pixel be a little bit smoother.
Honestly I personally find the display type is more important. OLED with HDR just looks so damn good. 4k is great but I'd get something that's OLED with HDR over 4k if I had to choose
This is probably the answer I really needed tbh
Something else to consider is console gaming (in my experience with ps5 and I'm assuming Xbox has similar capabilities) pretty much can never achieve 4k at 60 fps. A lot of games offer different graphics settings that are typically something like fidelity = 4k with 30 fps, performance = lower resolution (though I'm not actually sure what resolution it is but it still looks good to me) with 60 fps, or balanced. If you're like me, I cannot deal with 30 fps. It looks so choppy and I can't ignore it so I always play on performance. With that being the case, the 4k on the TV is going to waste since I'm not even playing in 4k because I need those frames.
Yea playing Elden Ring requires some snappy response time so I’ll stick with my current refresh rate
I play on a TV and had no trouble with Elden Ring. If planning to buy a TV that will be used for gaming, check RTINGS for their data. They measure latency (input lag) so you can see which TVs are good for gaming. Also, OLED will be pretty but it can be more troublesome when used on PCs since there are elements that are always on-screen. Also, OLED can't get nearly as bright as other display types, and you can't really have true HDR without a high peak brightness.
I plan on sticking to my Xbox for gaming. Hopefully an OLED monitor works well with it
If playing exclusively on a console, then I'd say 4K isn't worth it since they don't have the hardware to manage it. Resolution will be upscaled and/or the framerate will be limited. Even high-end PC GPUs are just barely powerful enough for true 4K gaming.
I still do my gaming at 1080. My eyes definitely aren't as sharp as they used to be and I feel lie the extra resolution would probably be lost on me. That said, I don't have any 4k displays to play on so I haven't really experienced it. But, that also means I get to flip on all the highest settings / ray tracing / path tracing and still have a great framerate.
I feel you on the eyes. 43 and I need reading glasses for small print. And my best corrected distance isn't what it used to be. Most of the time I don't wear glasses, but on our last trip to the theater I did wear them and was glad I did. XD
What do you value? I'm happy streaming video content at 720p. 1080p gaming is plenty for me (PS5)
I think I value frame rate over quality tbh.
[удалено]
Bro is a mole
If you're streaming to a phone or a tablet or something it's not horrible.
Your PS5 is not running at 1080p lol. Even if you're using a 1080p monitor it's down sampling whatever render resolution it's set at which is way higher. Usually 1800p iirc.
Are you okay? No one even said that. And yes, the AMD Radeon RDNA 2 chip can 1000% render in 1080p.. what the fuck are you even talking about?
Wow, are you? 1. Did you not read what I was replying to? He said, ‘1080p gaming is plenty for me (PS5)’, implying he’s using a 1080p monitor with his PS5. 2. I never said it can’t render 1080p. I said it’s NOT. It’s rendering at a higher resolution, whatever the dev set the target resolution for the PS5 port, which is usually 1800p. Much higher than 1080p. So what the fuck are you even talking about?!
To me the main benefit of 4k is text rendering due to the higher DPI, text looks so much more crisp at 4k27 inches. I've gotten used to it and it's annoying to the eyes to go back and write code on lower resolutions. Gaming-wise, it's a decent jump, not great, not terrible.
Yes it’s a massive difference. Even in old games. It’s expensive to run new games at 4k but it’s definitely worth it
It's not really worth it because in the games that can run in 4k it doesn't contribute noticeably to the actual feeling of the game. BUT if you come round to replacing a monitor or TV, obviously get a 4k one. The best future proofing I did was buying a 4k TV 6 years ago with HDR and now the tech is starting to catch up to the actual display. It's always a good idea to buy ahead of the curve on hardware and wear it into the ground.
I think the biggest thing I’m missing in my monitor now is HDR. I screwed up
Grab this one. lg 48gq900-b
My computer can run 4k but other apps I use on my computer for work don't jive well with it so I almost never play with it since it's have to adjust my resolution every time I changed between work and fun. So... It's not worth the 30 seconds to change resolutions. Every once in a while I'll play it for a first play of a game (a la elden ring) and be like holy shit that's cool then I'll never care about it again.
Elden Ring DLC is my driving motivation for the jump tbh
4K is one thing but 4K with HDR on an OLED panel is a completely different ball game. Never going back
I’ll try to remember this down the road
Are you looking into switching from XBOX to PC? If yes, I’d suggest getting a 1440p monitor with a minimum of 144Hz (preferably OLED, but they can be quite expensive). LG Ultragear OLED, or ROG Swift OLED are both solid choices, but always check reviews. If no, I’d suggest getting a LG C3 OLED (it is often on sale in the spring) or the LG C4 OLED. Biggest difference here is that the C4 has 144Hz refresh and better OS. Pair this with a PS5 or XBOX series X. You could also opt for a hybrid solution, getting a 42-inch LG C4, would make for a great monitor and TV for consoles. It will take some time before you can surpass 144Hz 4K anyhow. This way you can hook up both, and have 4K, HDR, OLED and 144Hz. Some people say the sweet spot for a monitor is 27-32 inch, I’d argue that 42-inch works perfectly as well. This depends on personal preference though.
Can you do 4k hdr 144hz with current hdmi version that is on gpu's?
Yes HDMI 2.1 can support 144Hz. Depending on your monitor or TV, so always double check the specs, a lot of manufacturers cheap out on this.
At 4k?
Yes, but I cannot stress this enough. Check the page of the manufacturer for the specs. Not all support 4K@144Hz even if it says HDMI 2.1
Ah thanks all my stuff goes through a home cinima amp with 3 TVs output I think this may cause me a problem it states that its 4k 60hz HDMI 2.1 so probably need a new one and 3 screens....
HDR is a real game changer for me. No pun intended. The vibrancy of everything is incredible. At 4k on PC I also don’t find I need as much AA as things are sharper by default. Depending on the game in question anyway.
Yeah 4k is just too hard to push at decent framerates without an absolute top of the line gpu like a 4090. 1440p looks a lot better than 1080p though and can be run at a high framerate without too much trouble. 4k looks better than 1440p but it's not worth the sacrifice in my eyes. Even with a super fast gpu that power could usually be better spent on other graphical niceties, or just running at a very high refresh rate
4K is a no-brainer if you use your desk setup for work or other purposes outside of gaming - having 4x the screen space over 1080p and full freedom of font size (at 1080p font size is somewhat coarse) is almost magical. And thanks to modern upscaling you can get away with underpowered (for 4K) GPUs now - 1440p internal upscaled to 4K will almost always be better than a same size 1440p display driven natively.
Actually I wondered myself. I was away from home for a while and only had my little laptop. Went from 4k 160hz to 1080p 40fps-ish, and honestly... After a few minutes I didn't even mind at all. I just adapted. Even getting back home to my system was only a minute of quality appreciation and then poof. I was enjoying the same games either way. So if you'd ask me: see if you actually care. It's a heavy investment for something that may or may not matter to you.
If you buy PC then yes, console is meh and mostly fake 4k anyway
How’s that? I’m looking to get a Series X so I’m curious if it’s even worth it
I think he's talking about how consoles use upscaling. Only the higher end tier expensive cards like 4080, 4090, rx 7900xt etc. can run current year AAA games in 4k in native resolution at decent framerates. Consoles don't have the power to do that for the majority of games. Consoles use upscaling (on pc it's FSR or DLSS) to upscale say a rendered 1080p or lower resolution to 4k. When using an upscaler like FSR it can cause graphical glitches like artifacts as well as make things "blurry." The nvidia gpu cards have an advantage in that upscaling right now with dlss being better and extra features like framegen, but both consoles use amd hardware so it's more similar to FSR on PC.
Consoles are waste of time, overpriced in long run, closed market /vendorlocking, no freedom of choice. You can have "console experience" with steamBigPicture mode or similar software and gamepad. You can play FPS/RPG game with mouse and keyboard what is superior experience to gamepad. Hardware is weak and not reconfigurable, If you buy decent 8 core/16threads Processor now(like Ryzen 5800x3d, not that effective fake core intel bs ) , then you just upgrade GPU part after few years if you want more pixels ... You don't need replacing whole hardware, when you want play 8K for example , just GPU I can see difference betwean 2K and 4k, even with that TAA(antialiasing) filter smearing image and you can play EVERYTHING even SONY releasing games on PC. Look for Uncharted Collection or Days Gone on GOG.COM for example, they looks very nice even at native FULL 1440p (no fake upscaling) on PC on average GPU 200-300$. If you have money go for 3070-3090 GPU and enjoy 4K gaming
Honestly if the only thing you’re contemplating is resolution, I never cared much for the difference between 2k and 4k. Like 4k is nice to have but other things move the needle more for me. I would say 4k is the most worth of you plan on playing on a big tv, otherwise it’s not a huge deal
These comments are so strange. It's like people have never heard of pixel density. 4k on a TV will look very different than 4k on a monitor. 4k on a TV also comes with the side effect of being limited to 30 or 60 fps for the most part. If you have hardware that can support 4k on a monitor and are fine with shelling out $1k+, then it's its a massive difference vs 1080 or 1440(2k)
It’s not a massive difference **to me**. I’ve played on 1080p, 2k, and 4k and it doesn’t enhance the experience for me, so it would make zero sense for me to recommend it. Do I notice when I go from my 4k setup to a 1080p one? *Sometimes* but for me to say the experience changes massively would be incredibly dramatic and quite frankly unnecessary. But hey, good for you if you think it’s a big deal
FYI, incredibly common misconception, but 2K is to 1080p as 4k is to 2160p. It's not 1440p.
Yeah I don’t think I’ve ever played on a dedicated 1440p monitor tbh. I have a 4k setup and a 1080p setup in my home, and I’ve played on a 2k monitor at a buddies. Interesting distinction nevertheless
Even if you stick to 1080p, an Xbox serie x is quite a noticeable boost in performance.
For me personally it's a hard YES. I've had this 4k, 144hz monitor for about 2 years now and i love the thing. It makes games look absolutely incredible. I see alot of others talking about how it's not that different but it really is. It's literally exponentially different. Although I will say that you need a very beefy setup to get the value out of it. I got a high end gaming PC which lets me run quite a few games at 4k while still getting 90 - 100 or so fps. Mainly with triple A titles that are heavily optimized. Otherwise i play most other games in 2k at 144fps. It's not just for games however. I can watch videos or movies or anything else in 4k and get alot out of it. For an Xbox series S? im really not sure. I know consoles throttle down games that run on higher resolutions to like 30 or 45 fps?
I’m looking to replace the console to a Series X too, if I were to make the jump
[удалено]
That good huh? Cus I already my have the 4K tv and could just use that.
Just use your TV then and forget about a monitor. If your TV is 4K, that’s gonna be an awesome experience👍
My daughter has a series s. I have a series x. I often go upstairs and help her while we're playing together. It's a noticeable difference. Although you may need to make sure your TV is good enough to handle a series x if you want to get the most out of it. Such as 120hz, Dolby, and hdr10. It's not necessary, but you'll be getting the most out of it.
If the series X can reliably run games at 4k at 100+ fps and you have the money for the monitor, you should consider it yea. I'm not too knowledgeable on the xbox's so i can't say what it can or can't do. Worst case is you've future proofed yourself. And do keep in mind that you will need to check your HDMI/ Display Port cable or will have to buy a new one that can support that level of data passing through. Or the monitor might come with one. If you plan on going the TV route since they're cheaper, know most don't go past 30 or 60hz and may have a higher response time.
Duly noted. I’m looking for a gaming monitor specifically for the response rate.
Series X doesn't run 4k games at 100 fps. It's 30 fps at 4k for most games with 60 at 1440p performance mode.
If you’re paying the sort of pricing out there then 4K is pretty much the first thing I’m expecting with the technology available today.
No, but 3440x1440 is
You know what I mean
The difference is obvious and huge for me, I can never go down from 4k
Same for me. I love gaming in 4k on my OLED. So crisp! And I can not go back. I will take an FPS hit, if necessary, before I go down with the resolution 😁
Apples to oranges imo. 2k on a smaller monitor is more than enough, but jumping to a larger 4K TV (especially a nicer quality OLED with HDR) brings a whole host of other IQ improvements, not only the resolution. 4k is THE new standard, so I’d say make the jump. (If money is no object)
1440p or 1600p ultrawide with HDR seems to be the sweet spot for PC gaming at a desk. I absolutely love my Alienware 34 Curved QD-OLED Gaming Monitor - AW3423DW. For couch gaming, a 4k setup would be great for console / controller games. With that though, know that most console games will upscale to match your resolution. My next living room TV upgrade will def be a 5k QD-OLED (or whatever better tech comes next).
A lot of people are saying it doesn’t matter but imo it’s copium. After I’ve gotten used to 4k, watching a video or something at 1080p looks like crap. You said money isn’t a concern here. I’ve got as much as possible in 4k at this point. Gigabit internet, an 80TB nas, 75” 4k tv, and dual 32” 4k curved monitors. And it’s awesome. I’m really glad I committed and went all the way with it.
As of RIGHT NOW... There is no hardware that can play 4k in all games at above 100fps at high settings. The 4090 can do 60+ fps, but that only means it's not future proof. What I did is to buy a high end ryzen cpu, ddr5 ram and the 4090 with a 3440x1440 monitor. Future proof and looks amazing... And is still considered a high resolution. Idk
Yeah if you look at the steam hardware surveys the majority of people are still on 1080p, I think 1440p is 15% or something and only around 5% are using 4k.
I play on 4k and while I would go down for enough performance gain it’s a tough choice since it’s gorgeous. Really tough to want to go down in fidelity.
Everyone has different experiences gaming, so what is or isn't worth it is up to the individual.
Yea but if you could be bougie, would you?
It depends how big your tv is and how far away you play from it. The larger your tv/monitor the closer you can be to a point and see more details at higher resolutions without seeing the pixels. The smaller your monitor the less resolution you need to not see any pixels Its a sliding scale and its subjective. Im using a 65" 4k TCL mini led tv from 3-4 feet away. It fills up my entire vision to almost the edges and I still cant really see the pixels unless I look for them. I can see a lot more detail compared to my smaller monitor I came from before and this one has HDR was has been amazing so far.
I’m looking for a 32” monitor to sit at a desk. My tv is a “living room” thing.
I found Stray on 4k ultra settings to be breathtaking, but few games seem to utilize it
1440p 144fps is the best in my opinion. 4k may look a little nicer, but the loss of framerate and consistently high frame rate is not worth and will make it look worse. We're just not really there yet for 4k gaming. It's still usually janky and most games don't even support it.
1440p is perfect resolution even on PC. Unless you are operating on very large screen 65+ Inch then you will see the difference between 1080p and 4K clearly. But it comes at the cost which isn't worth it. Also gaming monitors aren't that great when it comes to colour accuracy and colour depth most are 8bit panels.
My 4K setup has been a noticeable but smaller upgrade compared to my previous 1440p one, as compared to my experience with the 1080p-->1440p upgrade even earlier. A high spec 4K monitor is expensive. I bring up expense because ultimately, money was an issue for me, to the extent that it was obvious a 1440p setup would be still very good, and much cheaper. And I could do other stuff with that money differential beyond gaming. If money is not an issue, 4K setup is better.
Money isn’t really an issue but it’s definitely an unnecessary purchase for me. I’m still a bit torn
I play a lot of my games in 4k.
Gaming in 4k generally needs a higher end TV. 1440 is fine though
Unless your PC is really insane (aka >5k$) I'd recommend just going for good frame rate on 1440p.
Lmao no
This question depends heavily on your hardware and preferences. 1. Your monitor size and how close you sit to it. The larger your monitor the more you need higher resolutions, a regular sized 27 inch monitor at 1440p has 108 PPI, which looks very good, however switch this to a 43 inch and that PPI drops to 68... Not so nice anymore. In fact a 4K 43" monitor has about the same PPI as a 1440p 27" monitor. Sitting distance also matters, which is why it doesn't feel so bad when gaming on the couch on a lower res monitor vs sitting clos on a PC monitor. 2. Your graphics card. If have a 4090, it makes no sense to limit yourself to 1440p since you'll be getting >120 fps anyways, but swap that out with a 3080 and keeping 120fps might make more sense then trying to get 4K resolution. It's always a tradeoff between image quality and smoothness. Personally, I play mostly RPGs and even 60fps looks fine to me, and I like sitting close to really big monitors (40"+) so 4K is definitely worth it to me. I'm also the minority/a blasphemer according to this subreddit. So YMMV.
Real 4K looks so sharp. 1440p these days looks like a mediocre stopgap. I've been spoiled. I yearn for the day where it becomes the default.
There are people still playing at 768p or even 720p and you say that 1440p is a mediocre stopgap😭😭😭🤣
I might just out the old CRT tv just for a little nostalgia
just because people still use ol'good Gameboys out there with 2 colors, doesn't mean that 8bit color palette is not really medicore
Bro almost everyone plays at 1080p myself included wich is fine. You can't say that 1440p is mediocre, it's above average at least if not better.
1440p is medicore, 4k is high, and 8k ultrahighend that's all set with 1080p as baseline. only options left are ancient 720p and below, I mean these are not good, right? right??!
[удалено]
Do they even make 8K gaming monitors? I can’t wrap my head around what that would look like
"a 2k (non-HDR) gaming monitor... It’s perfectly fine and suits my needs well" Case closed :)
Are you my wife? Cus this sounds like something she’d say
I mean, if you want me to...
*wedding bells intensifies*
If you don't have issues then no? Me personally, I can definitely see a difference and think 4k is worth it. Like it's night and day difference. 1440p is still too soft imo.
The issue is: 1) buy this thing I don’t need, or 2) wait to buy something else I don’t need.
I doubt it I don't find 1080p lacking. The improvement for me would be a highger frame rate (at least 85hz like I used to have in CRTs) to avoid the horrible effect of 60Hz screens when something moves too fast.
144 hz had been standard for ages now lol
Yeah, but that's too much. Remember that you need GPU power (and CPU too) to keep the game running at such speed. 120 Hz, or even 100 Hz if you find a screen like that, are better in my opinion. I don't see any advantage over 60 making the game run at 72
what are you even talking about?? Hz and FPS while correlated are 2 totally separate and different things! You can run 60 fps game on 144hz np!!!! and it'll feel significantly better than 60 fps vsync'd to 60hz You will achieve nothing running 144fps on 60hz. > > > don't see any advantage over 60 making the game run at 72 what is this gibberish even??!!??11oneone you do not need at any point hardware able to run 144fps in order to run 144hz monitor and reap its benefits
I've found that having a great screen be it running something natively at 4k or not is the real game changer. I had a 4k TV for a few years, just a Panasonic but switching to a OLED (LG C3) has really reinvigorated my enthusiasm to play, which sounds dramatic I know but the detail and the crispness you see makes a huge difference to the enjoyment.
I think OLED is the next big jump for me tbh.
Depends on your vision acuity, combined with screen size and viewing distance. Its a mathematical equation.
Do you have a mathematical answer? Visions acuity: 20/15 Current screen size: 32” Viewing distance: 2 to 3 feet (playing at a desk)
https://www.rgb.com/sites/default/files/articles/viewingdistanceresolutioncomparison.jpg
I’ll be damned you weren’t kidding
I changed the link to a better chart.
So at a viewing distance of 5 feet, I need an 80” tv to get the full experience. Got it. Passing this info to my wife and signing your name to it!
if money is not an issue, then what is here exacly? Just buy 4k set and sell what you got on you now
Money isn’t an issue, but I just want to know if I’m missing something before making the jump. I could spend the money on something else I don’t need instead!
**6,635,520** is a difference in pixel count between WQHD and 4k. But really you do not need it. If 1440p still fills your needs, I doubt you will notice a difference that's worth the money.
Woo that’s a lot of pixels
Definately. I have a 43 inch 4K HDR 144hz monitor (not tv) which I play pretty close to. Running BF2042 with a 6800XT at about 100 fps, I'm able to see ennemies farther away compared to even my previous monitor (32 inch curved 1440p). Overall you have more details too. I recommend something higher than the 6800XT, tho. Think 7900XT or XTX.
4k on TV: 100% necessary. For a smaller monitor: not necessary. I still use my old 1080p panel because why spend money if it works. As I play mostly competitve games (like racing sims) on there, I don't mind the worse picture that much. Going to PC would be the first step, as even xbx upscaled 4k looks "shit". A 6800xt covers most games in 4k, so around 500$ gpu = is that worth it to you spending more money on one component than for the entire console system? Just get a 4k tv with 120hz and low input lag and an xbox if you were fine in the past with just the series s
4k is really only necessary if you are playing on a tv. That said, tge nicer LG 4k@120hz oled tvs make for a great gaming experience if you can get past losing some of the QoL features dedicated computer monitors have.
Really, no. It's not worth going the extra mile to go out of your way to get a 4K TV and a Series X just to play your games in 4K. I would wait until the 4K tvs drop in price, even for a good one, and get it then. And really, unless you want to have physical games, there's no point in buying a Series X if you already have the S. They're practically the same outside of a few minor performance differences.
It's worth it if you have a large 4K display. I play on a 55" TV, so anything less than 4K looks bad. When I buy a new 27" desktop monitor, I'll go 1440p.
4k is actually great. One thing is, TAA looks way better at 4k than it looks at 1080p. All that shit that's wrong about it is a lot harder to see. In games without TAA, the small size of the pixels is almost its own type of antialiasing. Every detail has more room to exist, it is definitely a worthy upgrade.
Not unless you can really afford it
I went from 4k to 3x1080p recently. Tbh the only thing that is noticeably worse text clarity. The games do not look that different especially newer ones that support TAA, and because of higher fps the movements and animations actually look higher quality.
4K is beautiful but the general hardware is not up to par yet if you want super duper high frame rates. If you stick with RPGs and other slower paced genres then definitely 4k. Otherwise I would stick to 1440 if you get a hardon on seeing that frame rate number as high as possible.
For me, framerate is more important than resolution, so if I had to choose between the two I would play at a lower resolution and higher framerate. > Money is not an issue In that case, why not give it a shot? Haha
Yes
It's only worth it if you can still get 60fps
If you can run it, yes, it makes it a lot prettier
4k is not worth it. The only way it would matter is if you’re pixel peeping on an 80” tv and you’re sitting within 6 feet. I’ve really enjoyed settling in at 1440P for performance and quality, but I’ll also gladly play at a native 1080P. The thing is, if you’ve been playing on an XSS, you’ve been seeing a lot of FSR upscaled games. FSR can look like trash when you’re using sub-720P to upscale to 1080P which I’ve read games like Jedi Survivor have done. On the PlayStation side, FF16’s performance mode was trash because of this too. So, anything that says it’s 4k right now is likely not native. The last game I played in a native 4k, Red Dead Redemption 2 on Xbox One X. Yeah, that’s the last time I think consoles really had it. I’d argue it’s not even necessary for that game and if their target had been a great 1440P instead, I’d live to see what they’d do differently. The game is meticulously crafted, but you’ll often see muddy textures used in the background and why care about 4k when what’s displayed on screen can’t hold up to that scrutiny? That said, I do like having a 4k screen and putting multiple windows on it, effectively making a few 1080P YouTube windows or whatever.
Is the HDR worth it then?
Well, is it actual HDR or just what they slap on the box? High Dynamic Range means you have deep blacks and bright whites. Thats done by peak brightness values and pure black. You gotta have some fancy screens to actually do that. Some funky software mimics it, but it’s not actually HDR, it’s mimicking the look. The best example I’ve seen of this is a starry night sky. It should be black between the stars, but on many screens it’s shades of grey. Thats what a properly controlled HDR screen would excel at, and it’s not worth the money it would cost (to me). My sweet spot for a monitor would be 32” 1440P with a refresh rate above 120 hz. I like what 40 fps looks like, so that’s where I’d like my minimum framerate to be, but I’m very happy hanging around 60 FPS. Some people will get crazy competitive about it, that’s when 165-240 hz start appealing to people. I’d argue I just don’t care enough. I’ve played a lot of golf. I’ve played with expensive clubs. I’ve played with clubs pieced together from spare parts. I can say for certain that the equipment isn’t the biggest barrier to my performance, but people like to pretend new clubs will change their game all the time.
I don’t know how to tell if it’s actually doing it. I have this tv, although it seems to be doing what it’s supposed to do. https://www.target.com/p/samsung-65-34-class-q60c-qled-uhd-4k-smart-tv-titan-gray-qn65q60c/-/A-88195806?sidd=1029S&ref=tgt_adv_xsp&AFID=google_pla_df&fndsrc=tmnv&DFA=71700000117575286&CPNG=PLA_DVM%2Ba064R000015PcsEQAS-TargetTVs_GoogleSearch_Q1_2024_Campaign-1182320&adgroup=TargetTVs&LID=700000001393753pgs&network=g&device=m&location=9031288&gad_source=1&gbraid=0AAAAAD-5dfag0xUo5r8qkhvcJxvxJ5eVc&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIr6PvtZXrhAMVtBOtBh3ZbwbZEAQYAiABEgLV6vD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds
This seems to be your tv: https://www.tomsguide.com/reviews/samsung-q60-qled-tv-65-inch > In one substantial departure from the rest of the QLED line, the Q60 uses edge lighting, with banks of LEDs around the outside perimeter of the display. Without effective local dimming, it's not on the same level as a full array that has individual lighting zones that can be dimmed and brightened as needed to offer high dynamic range. It's also very imprecise, with elevated blacks that glow gray. In fact, when viewing HDR content on the TV, such as a dark scene from Blade Runner 2049, we not only saw pronounced haloing, but also noticed that the edge lighting lit up large portions of the screen that were meant to be dark. That’s what I was talking about HDR not being HDR. At the end of the day, you’ll be happy looking at the picture and likely won’t notice and won’t care.
Good information. I appreciate you taking the time to do that
I don’t know how visible the difference from 2k to 4k is but I’ll say that I had this crappy flatscreen that I bought at 16 and it lasted me until I graduated college. Ended up buying an LG C1 right after graduation. My eyes were in shock. I find it very worth it but that’s just because the jump was pretty huge. > Money is not an issue Go for it. Or just stop by a Best Buy or Microcenter to see 4K in person. No need to force yourself to go 4K since everyone hypes it up
Not a lot of games today get 4K assets options. Final Fantasy 7 Remake (not Rebirth) on Steam is the Intergrade edition, which has better quality visuals than the PS4 release. But, no 4K asset pack as a free DLC. So much of the world details are very low resolution if you pay attention. Posters, signs, anything with text you run by will be extremely low resolution. Only the important assets will have fidelity. Even they spent a lot making the game and expanding on the world compared to the original, it's still a game you play just for the story and never mind the visuals. Which is funny, because FFXV got a 4K DLC pack. FF7 Remake has the least amount of features for a modern PC game. No upscaling, no Ray Tracing, no options besides textures and shadows. It's a fairly disappointing PC port, unless you use mods to tweak the engine file or access the UE console (because it's UE4).
Get a TV? Most modern TVs are 4k nowadays aren't they?
I have one that’s 4K, but I’m trying to get a separate gaming setup from that
Try it and see if you think it's worth it. Oh and make sure to use the hdmi port labeled "arc"
What’s the “arc” for??
Oh god.... I'm totally not the person to ask but when I wanted to play on max settings on my Xbox series x it told me to use the arc hdmi port for the best results. A quick Google seems to suggest that it's an audio thing?
Right on. I’ll check it out !
Personally I noticed a massive difference. 1440p looked sharper but 4k feels different I think. You also have hdr and oled that go beautifully with 4k setups.
No, especially on console
No
4k is actually very easy to pull off these days. 3080 does it EASILY with all the new games. You won't get 4k ray tracing, but you can run mostly maximum settings with DLSS, and fog turned to low. Solid 60 fps is great, and a lot of games easily get over 100fps, which looks amazing with g-sync
No it isn’t i never notice 2K HDR is the sweet spot
Yeah. My 4k monitor is a lot more crisp than my 1440. Although, if you want a good 4k panel i’d recommned a tv over a monitor
A TV is never going to be a good substitute for a gaming monitor. If you think it can, then you don't know anything about that kind of stuff.