Support NeoGAF

[Nydius]

Who can't afford a 4K television in 2023? Even Walmart doesn't stock televisions that aren't at least 4K.

We have two of those TVs because that's all we could afford when we first moved.. A 55" TCL Roku TV and a 43" HiSense Roku TV. They're fine for basic TV watching but they're absolute trash for anything else. Both of these sets have poor settings, awful gray/black uniformity, wonky color profiles, and terrible latency. HDR may as well not exist. Just because the box says "4K HDR" doesn't mean it'll be a quality experience.

 

[Kacho]

Its called staring at a tiny screen. 4K on a 60" is more than noticeable. Also I can never understand you PC people, so a 4k monitor is expensive but paying $2000 for a new graphics card is a bargain. You really don't have your priorities straight. When you switch to 4K, you will notice just how blurry it was whatever you were playing on your 1440 especially noticeable on the text and menus. Having had PS4 for 3 years and then buying the PRO which added 4K support, it wasn't a tiny difference, it was massive upgrade in sharpness.

What good is a $2000 PC if you’re dropping another $2000 on a 4K monitor only to tank your performance? It’s clear console only plebs don’t get it because they continue to spew the most ignorant nonsense. Most of the games played on console aren’t even true 4K and still can’t maintain a stable framerate.

 

[AeonGaidenRaiden]

What good is a $2000 PC if you’re dropping another $2000 on a 4K monitor only to tank your performance? It’s clear console only plebs don’t get it because they continue to spew the most ignorant nonsense. Most of the games played on console aren’t even true 4K and still can’t maintain a stable framerate.

Problem with you PC ppl is when you consider hardware you MUST have the best as if that is only thing available. I just randomly searched 4K PC monitors, theres plenty for $400-600....why do you need a TWO THOUSAND one??? My 4K 58" TV with HDR, LG cost me $900 lol. You sound like a perfect customer to smear vaseline over his eyes and rip your credit card out of your hands, gimme a sec, Ill sell you some air.

 

[Larxia]

4k resolution is waste of performance imo

Especially when you gaming on a 27-32 monitor, 4k is ehhhhh

Especially with the fact that everything is way too small in 4K if you're running on a 27" monitor or less. Sure there's windows resolution scaling, but it can be weird and that's just for desktop, some games will still have very small hud and text in 4K on screens this size if they don't scale properly.

 

[Robbinhood]

I got a 4k monitor in delivery, upgrading from 1440 UW.

Here's the thing, I don't expect to run 4k native most of the time. I'm hoping either through DLSS or some checkboarding shit I can upscale the image like I do with consoles so that it still looks good, as good as 1440p and for those less demanding games and also videos, I can run 4k.

I was playing Anno 1800 at 1080p medium settings and when I upgraded to 1440 with a better graphics card, it was the Ultra SETTINGS that gave me that wow factor not the resolution bump. The crazy textures, increased amount of civilians on screen, those were so much better than the mere res bump.

So I'm actually a bit worried I can't run ultra settings like that with a 4k monitor. We'll see how it goes. I just want something as good as 1440p on those more demanding games,

 

[Kacho]

Problem with you PC ppl is when you consider hardware you MUST have the best as if that is only thing available. I just randomly searched 4K PC monitors, theres plenty for $400-600....why do you need a TWO THOUSAND one??? My 4K 58" TV with HDR, LG cost me $900 lol.

You might want to sit down for this because I’m about to blow your mind.

4K monitors only recently came down in price. People gaming on 1440p monitors bought them a few years ago because that’s what was affordable and GPUs struggled at 4K. As people upgrade over the next few years, they will buy 4K monitors because they’re becoming more affordable and new GPUs can handle 4K.

Hope that helps.

 

[night13x]

I game on my god like 3" 4k screen. you 32" 1440p with 240hz screens are loosers lol.

escuse me while I find my glasses, my magnifyer, and my headache pills.

 

[UniformDeliverance]

No matter how powerful my pc gets, no matter what cpu or gpu I upgrade to. I will always get a better framerate at 1440p than I will at 4k.

Since 1440p already provides a clear enough picture, I’d rather have the extra frames, than the extra pixels.

 

[TrueLegend]

I play at 4K and I can't go back and thats why both PS5 and XSX suck as the 4K in consoles is just pure soup as they don't have power to do even proper next gen 1440p ultra even at 30p as A Plague's Tale: Requiem demonstrated. I think the new sweet spot is 3840x1440p ultrawide except ultrawide monitors can be expensive but recently ultrawide prices are becoming very reasonable. I was thinking of grabbing one myself. Uncharted 4 looks a lot better in ultrawide.

 

[Lasha]

Absolute facts. Only reason to go for lower resolution is if your hardware can't handle it.

Hell, even reconstructed 4K is way better than 1440p.


1440p is a waste of resources. Why not just stick to the highly efficient 1080p?

1080p is optimal for gaming. Its the pro gaming standard for a reason. 1440p looks noticeably different from 1080p at monitor distances while providing a better layout for productivity.

 

[Knightime_X]

Gonna have to disagree.
1440p to me looks good enough and the difference between the 2 is trivial.
When it comes to pc power requirements, 4k for newer games is comical.
People be spending $2,000+ and larger power draws from the wall meanwhile I'm content with the image quality.

Oh and 60fps is far more likely with 1440p vs 4k little to no dlss required, given the strength of the gpu.

 

[grfunkulus]

I have yet to game at 4k on PC. I look forward to it actually. Whenever I'm ready to spend another 700 dollars on a monitor. Til then 1440p max frames on ultra is more than enough.

You can get an LG C2 42 inch for ~$600ish on the hottest sale for a refurb (new has been available once or twice for just a smidge more IRRC). As a controller player on PC, the 48 OLEDs are more than fine, peripheral vision-wise. I can understand a 42 incher being a bit big for M+K but if you can manage it, it's by far the most economical and impressive way to make the move to 4k. Only a couple PC monitors that can match these TVs for sheer picture quality, and if 120hz is enough for you, you're going to notice the 4k 90-120fps experience much more than you EVER would ultra details/effects. Knock it down to high and I assume whatever decently beefy gpu you're using to run high fps (144hz+?), 1440p U Ultra will do just fine with a big ol' 4k Oled. Hard to go back once you've seen 'the future'.

 

[Sleepwalker]

You're right OP but also only if you game on a big ass screen. I game on a 65 inch qd oled and aim for 4k whenever I do. On my 27 inch pc monitor theres no point so 1440p is fine.

 

[Kenpachii]

3440x1440 ftw.

 

[TheGodfather07]

Personally, I dont know how people play on small ass monitors. Small screens totally ruins immersion for me. Guess I got spoiled by the 65 inch oled.

 

[N0S]

Most 1440p believers are 24 inch peasants

 

[Setsuna Mudou]

Stupid take by the op. As a few mentioned, 1440 is the sweet spot for multiple reasons, including viewing distance and screen size.

You can find plenty of these charts online, so in fact, for desktop gaming, at normal distance from the screen even a 1080p screen might hit the sweet spot, anything above could be redundant.

This from a guy that has a curved 1440p gaming monitor, triple 55in 4k displays for sim racing and VR, so no cope here

Funny enough for console only players, the majority probably sits far enough away from the tv a 1440p resolution would be sufficient, with clear benefits for IQ and fps. But hey, 4k or bust amirite?

 

[waterclaws6kun]

I take 1440p, due to it supporting many good scaling options and being easier to drive.

4k is great if you can run it, have space for 4k content, and good internet to take advantage of it. It's glorious with a big screen (40-85 in), but on a smaller screen it's a bit too much.

 

[tvdaXD]

4K is for people who can't run 8K, get your game up cheapo.
No but in all seriousness, 4K is a waste of resources, besides almost nothing running in 4K natively, most of the time the TV's in the living room are at such a distance that it doesn't even matter if it were 1440p or 4K. On top of that, search your favorite 4K movies on IMDb, there's a high chance the digital intermediate is just 2K, so you're basically watching an upscale lmfao.
TLDR: 4K is basically a waste of resources, framerate should be the focus, not resolution.

 

[Icymanipulator]

on smaller screens resolution isn’t as important.
Also, running games at 1440 is less resource intensive. Allowing people to run games at good frame rates on older hardware.

 

[rofif]

It is a fact. 1440p is barely noticeable. I’ve had 4k monitors like 5 years ago and even on 27”, the difference was big between 4k and 1440p.
Now that I play on 4k 48” oled, 1440p looks very soft. But don’t get me wrong. 4k needed aa even on that small monitor.

Maybe if you are down to 24”? The 1440p is fine but usually it’s not good.
It was always a stop gap resolution

 

[Tomeru]

4K is for people who love to play benchmarks.
1440p is for people who love to play games.

 

[anthraticus]

 

[rofif]

To a 4k disbelievers. Play dark souls 3. A game with poor aa.
It l looks so much better at 4k.
Nobody would say it’s not worth it.

 

[Dirk Benedict]

4K/60FPS is nice, but it's still luxury status. If people thought 1440p was a good place to land, so be it. No need to shit on people who probably didn't have the budget for 4k. Chasing 4k is fucking expensive... I know from experience. You know what? I bit when the time wasn't right and everyone else I know on here, who are graphics hounds, bit when the time was right. FUCK, lol.

I'd have a 4090 right now if shit wasn't so unpredictable to an extent... it is the card that I should have had. I'd hang on to it for 5 years, or so, who knows... maybe the 5xxx series..
Anyway, with that said, 1440p looks alright, kind of blurry to me, because I have been gaming 4k even when I was on the 3070 Ti. Spoiled and I go native any chance I get, if performance allows it.

 

[rofif]

Facts.

The bump to 4K is vastly superior to the jump to 60fps.

Anything but 4K looks sub par

Depends. If the 30fps is good low input lag like in bloodborne and motion blur is good, then yeah. I will take 4k bloodborne over 60fps bloodborne. But if it’s sluggish like demons souls, then no

 

[coffinbirth]

frames>resolution
If you have a setup that facilitates Ultra 1440p120+fps and you willingly choose *4K* 60fps, you're doing it wrong...

 

[The_Mike]

"my hardware box outputs in 4k therefore its best"

Why would I have a diminish return of pixels on my monitor that's barely noticeable vs 160 fps and higher textures?

Oh, right, because the eye can't see more than 30 60fps.

 

[supernova8]

Trolling are we

 

[SantaC]

Meanwhile switch is still at 720p

 

[Kenpachii]

To a 4k disbelievers. Play dark souls 3. A game with poor aa.
It l looks so much better at 4k.
Nobody would say it’s not worth it.

DSR the game.

 

[rofif]

frames>resolution
If you have a setup that facilitates Ultra 1440p120+fps and you willingly choose *4K* 60fps, you're doing it wrong...

120hz is overrated. Too small jump from 60 honestly.
240hz is where it’s at if you want frames.
I would much more prefer 1080p240 rather than 1440p120

 

[coffinbirth]

120hz is overrated. Too small jump from 60 honestly.
240hz is where it’s at if you want frames.
I would much more prefer 1080p240 rather than 1440p120

120+
as in, 120 fps minimum

 

[PeteBull]

Who can't afford a 4K television in 2023? Even Walmart doesn't stock televisions that aren't at least 4K.

Its not about affording 4k tv or monitor, its about having enough of gpu oomph to keep high enough settings/fps on demanding games, since i got myself 4k60 monitor(yes, even 60fps) i fellt huge need to upgrade from gtx 1080 to 3080ti and now after bit over 1,5year im already determined to buy rtx 5080/5090(depending on price/perf between those models) on next gen gpu launch.
If i was on 1440p i could easily wait one more gen so till 6k series coz difference in power to keep same fps is huge, and im talking here stable fps, not 60fps avg, but 60fps minimum in worst case scenario(already had to use dlss and reduce settings by a lot here in few games, some new ones, some bad optimised ones, but still, if i had 2-3x more gpu power it wouldnt go to waste).

 

[lukilladog]

Your hardware cannot handle, that is why you upscale from a lower resolution and insert fake frames with dlss.

 

[Come On Tars]

This for consol on tv or PC? Isn’t it really hard to tell at most monitor sizes? I got an old 27 acre predator but my next monitor might be a lil oled 4k tv. Seems tk be what people are doing now.

 

[coffinbirth]

4K is for people who can't run 8K, get your game up cheapo.
No but in all seriousness, 4K is a waste of resources, besides almost nothing running in 4K natively, most of the time the TV's in the living room are at such a distance that it doesn't even matter if it were 1440p or 4K. On top of that, search your favorite 4K movies on IMDb, there's a high chance the digital intermediate is just 2K, so you're basically watching an upscale lmfao.
TLDR: 4K is basically a waste of resources, framerate should be the focus, not resolution.

I mean, you joke...but a capable rig can run many AAA games @ 8K and 60fps these days. 4090 is a goddamned beast.

 

[Spukc]

Native 1080p or 1440p looks like ass on a 4k screen.

I still remember how amazing diablo3 looked on my native 1440p dell ultrasharp. Near launch.

And how good motorstorm looked on my native 720p flatscreen tv at the ps3 launch. Or how good casino royale looks on a native 1080 plasma from panasonic.

4K is overated as fuck.
Only good thing imo is HDR and VFR

 

[Havoc2049]

4k is for the slow walking simulator kids.

 

[Kataploom]

Nah, 1440p on my 43" 4K TV looks good enough unless you're a really OCD driven person, for which not even native 4K will help you. Yes, jaggies don't dissapear at 4K without some sort of TAA or absurdly expensive AA, BTW I'd suggest therapy if you REALLY can't enjoy gaming on your TV because it doesn't look 100% native, something else is up there buddy.

Also, many people these days play at desk distance on 27" or less monitors, i.e.:

Wrong. Everyone knows 4K is objectively superior. People favor 1440p over 4K because monitors are less expensive and you get a sharper image without sacrificing too much performance. It’s called the middle ground.

Every day more and more people play on gaming monitors rather than on TVs even with their consoles, they are less expensive and mostly good enough. And those monitors aren't even 2K most of the time.

BTW, not all 2K monitors are cheaper than most 4K TVs, take a look at those extreme HFR ones, I've seen people mentioning they're pairing their 4090 with one of those.

Its called staring at a tiny screen. 4K on a 60" is more than noticeable. Also I can never understand you PC people, so a 4k monitor is expensive but paying $2000 for a new graphics card is a bargain.

PC gaming is about choices and customization of the experience, most gaming PCs are in the mid range, btw, which is already above PS5 and XSX in terms of power (I have a 6700 XT and it's like 30% to 40% above PS5 going by the games actual performance you can see on DF).

And those that spend $2000 on a GPU can spend around $1000 on 2K high refresh rate OLED HDR (or whatever) monitors that are equally or more expensive than mid-high end 4K TVs. Here in this thread there are some already doing that.

In the end it's a matter of preferences, I'll never go up to 4K unless I get around 60 fps (with VRR if it goes down to 50s)

 

[zombrex]

4k is phenomenal, anyone who argues otherwise is crazy.
I enjoy playing older games in 4k than newer games in 1440p tbh.
Once you go 4k its hard to go back.

 

[nikos]

4K is also overrated because it's still 16:9. High res ultrawide is the real upgrade.

 

[DenchDeckard]

 

[rofif]

Native 1080p or 1440p looks like ass on a 4k screen.

I still remember how amazing diablo3 looked on my native 1440p dell ultrasharp. Near launch.

And how good motorstorm looked on my native 720p flatscreen tv at the ps3 launch. Or how good casino royale looks on a native 1080 plasma from panasonic.

4K is overated as fuck.
Only good thing imo is HDR and VFR

There were no native 720p screens….

The way 1440p looks on a 4k screen is about the same like it looks on native. It is overstated how bad much worse 1440p looks on 4k. No. It just looks bad

 

[Kataploom]

What good is a $2000 PC if you’re dropping another $2000 on a 4K monitor only to tank your performance? It’s clear console only plebs don’t get it because they continue to spew the most ignorant nonsense. Most of the games played on console aren’t even true 4K and still can’t maintain a stable framerate.

And 30 fps on top of that lmao... Hell, upscaled 4K from lower AND dynamic resolution lol

 

[daninthemix]

Agree completely OP.

However, because of DLSS the 4k doesn't have to be native. I firmly believe - have seen with my own eyes - numerous cases now where DLSS Quality looks either better or comparable to native 4k.

 

[Zug]

I play 2m~ away from a 65"4k TV, and the difference between 1440p and 4k isn't staggering (with good AA of course), nothing like 1080 to 1440 or 720 to 1080.
I'll favor 1440p/120fps when it's relevant, but reconstructed 4k (with DLSS in my case) is a good compromise.
Native 4k is a waste of ressources most of the time.

 

[Rea]

Because peasants can't afford to buy both 4k monitor and 4k capable graphics card so they downplay the 4k gaming by saying "it's a waste " blah blah.

 

[tvdaXD]

I mean, you joke...but a capable rig can run many AAA games @ 8K and 60fps these days. 4090 is a goddamned beast.

Try that without any upscalers or frame generation, on the highest settings. Don't think so.

 

[sertopico]

MMMMMMMMM......

Nope!

I own a 4k CX and a GSync 1440p monitor connected to a 4090, I greatly enjoy playing on both. On the latter I can avoid using any DLSS and benefit from a great IQ. Not to mention the fact I can do DSR up to 5k and get a super crisp image with superior effects quality (some of them scale with res). Being also closer to the monitor allows me to enjoy details beetter.

BTW, can't wait for Asus to release their 1440p HDR monitor.