4K is overrated compared to 1440p.

OverHeat

OverHeat

« generous god »
Bought a 1440p 240hz monitor to go along my almost 4K ultra wide monitor and LG CX OLED. And seriously on a 27´ monitor with a 3090 playing at high framerate is a game changer it look crisp but the main draw is the smoothness of it all 240 fps doom eternal is pure sex!
 
Last edited:
OverHeat said:
Bought a 1440p 240hz monitor to go along my almost 4K ultra wide monitor and LG CX OLED. And seriously on a 27´ monitor with a 3090 playing at high framerate is a game changer it look crisp but the main draw is the smoothness of it all 240 fps doom eternal is pure sex!
Click to expand...

You're finding that 1440p looks crisper than 4K because you're playing on a smaller display. The OLED you've got should be the ultimate. (But it's missing Ultra Wide.) I am already looking forward to 8K!
 
Last edited:
i fell for the 4K marketing shit and got a 4K monitor for my PC and returned it after a week. yeah it was sharper than 1440p but after a few days i didn't care. the performance hit my games took was what really bothered me. games i could run at 60fps i was now having to run at 30-40fps. the monitor i had used VRR so between 40-60fps there wasn't much of an issue but the step up to 4K was tanking performance so that not even VRR helped.

returned it and got a 1440p 165hz monitor. i didn't expect to be able to play every game at 120-165fps but i felt like i'd prefer higher fps than resolution. so i might not manage 1440p 144fps in a game but if i can do 1440p 90fps it would still be an improvement over my old 1440p 60hz monitor.

1440p is the sweetspot between 1080p + 4K. maybe in years from now i will move to 4K but right now it's not worth it. i'm quite happy with 1440p. it's sharp enough. if i can manage 4K while keeping reasonable framerates then i can downsample. if not then i can get 60fps or higher.
 
Resolution in general offers hugely diminished returns for the power required to run at a decent frame rate. I bet I could hardly tell the difference between 1440p content and 4k content on my C1, but 30FPS and 60 are night and day apart.
 
OverHeat said:
Bought a 1440p 240hz monitor to go along my almost 4K ultra wide monitor and LG CX OLED. And seriously on a 27´ monitor with a 3090 playing at high framerate is a game changer it look crisp but the main draw is the smoothness of it all 240 fps doom eternal is pure sex!
Click to expand...

Sigh... another day and another wrong opinion. 4K to 8K has more diminishing returns minus turning off the Aliasing entirely but 1440P to 4K is really noticeable to me. 1080 to 4K was the biggest upgrade. But 30 FPS to 144 Hz was even better. Higher RR's from 200+ I can't notice.
 
As a monitor console gamer, yea i agree.

1440p, 60 fps and low-mid RT is the best for console gaming.
 
Last edited:
You can apply the same logic to 1080p. 1080p on 21 inch screen looks great. But 1440p on 70 inch TV looks like complete ass.

Viewing distance matters. Screen size matters.
 
Fahdis said:
Sigh... another day and another wrong opinion. 4K to 8K has more diminishing returns minus turning off the Aliasing entirely but 1440P to 4K is really noticeable to me. 1080 to 4K was the biggest upgrade. But 30 FPS to 144 Hz was even better. Higher RR's from 200+ I can't notice.
Click to expand...
how is it a wrong opinion?

of course the step up from 4K to 8K is going to be less than 1440p to 4K. even if 4K does offer an improvement over 1440p there are still diminishing returns.

as i said in my post, going from 1440p to 4K meant a huge performance hit. yeah if i could run 4K it'd be sharper but it's not worth it if i'm having to play games at 30-40fps. i'm going with 1440p to play at 60+ fps.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
On 27" 1440p display, 1440p surely does look great. But double that size and come back again saying 4K is overrated. Then triple it and come back again. At 55", 65" and more you just need that kind of resolution for the games to not to look like PS360 blurry mess all over again.
 
A good example of 240hz supremacy is Hollow Knight. Just jump and observe how buttery *smooooooth* it is, switch back to 60 and... oh god! he teleports almost a centimeter between each frame! What terrible human suffering!
 
Obviously depends on the size of the screen. If you're gaming on a 75 inch TV, then 4K is visibly better than 1440p. But yeah, I'd always choose 60 fps over 30.
 
billyxci said:
how is it a wrong opinion?

of course the step up from 4K to 8K is going to be less than 1440p to 4K. even if 4K does offer an improvement over 1440p there are still diminishing returns.

as i said in my post, going from 1440p to 4K meant a huge performance hit. yeah if i could run 4K it'd be sharper but it's not worth it if i'm having to play games at 30-40fps. i'm going with 1440p to play at 60+ fps.
Click to expand...

Because pixel to pixel 1440P has aliasing issues. Most of your argument can now be circumvented with DSR and DLSS if the the game has it implemented. Best case scenario is Rise of the Tomb Raider in Quality DLSS at 4K with Ultra everything. The 1440P and 4K is night and day on an OLED screen. 1440P is for performance requirements, 4K takes up more resources but its worth it with new ways of AI scaling.
 
Last edited:
Banjo64 said:
I think the consensus is 1440p with a min 60fps is the best of both worlds?
Click to expand...


Pretty much every 1440p monitor thats sold in the last years is at minimum 144hz. Most of them 165 or 180. 60 is just unplayable dogshit after you spend a few months and adjusting your brain to high refresh rate. Ive been using a 165 monitor for several years now, and seeing comments to the tune of "Gears 2 and 3 are already 4k and 60 frames on xbox, why bother remastering them" makes me want to facepalm so hard that my hand would go through my face. Its preciselly because the games are at a shit 60 frames that we need them remastered
 
Last edited:
I have a 1440p monitor and some times I tend to downsample from 4K depending on the game.
On my 65" OLED, anything below 1800p looks blurry.
 
Fahdis said:
Because pixel to pixel 1440P has aliasing issues. Most of your argument can now be circumvented with DSR and DLSS if the the game has it implemented. Best case scenario is Rise of the Tomb Raider in Quality DLSS at 4K with Ultra everything. The 1440P and 4K is night and day on an OLED screen.
Click to expand...
yeah i know. but it's not the wrong opinion if someone prefers 1440p. not everyone can run 4K. i've even said if i can run a game at 4K i will do it and downsample it. yes technically 4K is better but 1440p is still a valid choice. nobody has a wrong opinion.
 
DukeNukem00 said:
Pretty much every 1440p monitor thats sold in the last years is at minimum 144hz. Most of them 165 or 180. 60 is just unplayable dogshit after you spend a few months and adjusting your brain to high refresh rate. Ive been using a 165 monitor for several years now, and seeing comments to the tune of "Gears 2 and 3 are already 4k and 60 frames on xbox, why bother remastering them" makes me want to facepalm so hard that my hand would go through my face. Its preciselly because the games are at a shit 60 frames that we need them remastered
Click to expand...
i disagree. yeah it was a bit rough at first but i've played and still play games at 60hz on my 165hz display.

it's bad if you let a game run unlocked and it bounces between 60-160fps. but if you know a game can't run at a high fps an lock it to 60 then it's perfectly enjoyable.
 
I have a high-refresh 1440p VA LCD and a 4K OLED. Honestly I think 1440p render looks pretty ugly and low-resolution, but it's hard to tell because of the gulf in screen quality...

One thing I will say though is that 4K render downscaled to 1440p using DLDSR looks 4K-like, so perhaps the screen resolution isn't so much a deal as the render. The actual pixel grid is sufficient for a well-resolved image. Until you start getting games with extremely dense detail and textures.
 
Mister Wolf said:
4K is for displays like 55" or larger.
Click to expand...
depends on distance you sit from it as well.

i got a 4K 55" and it's not a huge upgrade over my old 1080p. i did notice a difference when i first got it but going between 1080p + 4K content i don't really notice it.

if i sit closer then it's much better looking. i probably should have a 65-75" tv for the distance i sit away from it.

www.rtings.com

TV Size To Distance Calculator (And The Science Behind It)

Choosing a new TV for your room can be a daunting challenge. The market has never been more complicated, with dozens of new models released each year and a mountain of marketing jargon to work through.
www.rtings.com www.rtings.com
 
Last edited by a moderator:
4K even for larger TV is not necessary, one thing people keep on forgetting is the distance between your eye and display scales as the screen gets larger. The typical distance you are from a 65 inch screen nullify the resolution disadvantage. While a 32 inch monitor you are much closer.

No matter the screen size 1440p is always enough. Instead of upping resolution, there are tons of other area the extra hardware resource could put into. Not to mention DLSS and FSR 2.0 is more than enough to make 1440p render look as good as 4K
 
billyxci said:
yeah i know. but it's not the wrong opinion if someone prefers 1440p. not everyone can run 4K. i've even said if i can run a game at 4K i will do it and downsample it. yes technically 4K is better but 1440p is still a valid choice. nobody has a wrong opinion.
Click to expand...

I dunno. The laughing emoji seems a bit petty.

Facts
- 4K looks better than 1440P
- 4K eats up more resources hence it becomes a preference (I mean OP can choose to do whatever he wants. But if he wanted 2K gaming then the 3070 Ti does the job as well - What's the point of the 3090?)
- 4K + DLSS with High or Ultra presets being best if implemented in a game
- 1440P is a preference much like the options for Ultra in games which also have diminishing returns from High settings.
- 1440P will always give better performance because half resolution from 4K

Anyways, yea man, have a good day.
 
Last edited:
Well, native 4k is basically useless with current - and future - reconstruction tech.

In some games DLSS is so good there's virtually no difference, and you get better performance.

4K is nice for HUD elements and finer details on less demanding, slower or older games.

I really enjoy my 48" LG oled as a monitor.
 
Last edited:
Fahdis said:
I dunno. The laughing emoji seems a bit petty.

Facts
- 4K looks better than 1440P
- 4K eats up more resources hence it becomes a preference
- 4K + DLSS with High or Ultra presets being best if implemented in a game
- 1440P is a preference much like the options for Ultra in games which also have diminishing returns from High settings.
- 1440P will always give better performance because half resolution from 4K

Anyways, yea man, have a good day.
Click to expand...
lmfao you getting so worked up over an emoji?

i know that facts, thanks. have a good day :rolleyes:
 
DLSS/FSR 2.0 Quality 4K (1440p internal render) + 60 fps minimal should be the standard in future gaming.

8K in my opinion (even DLSSed) is retarded
 
Last edited:
For me 1600p is the sweetspot. Can't tell the difference any higher. Im using a 65 inch OLED for my PC and sitting like 4m away I think.

That's why I love PC. Right now my 3080 can play almost every game on 4k, but in the future I will still get my locked 60fps while I can just drop the resolution to even 1440p if needed.

I think with this my PC will last at least this whole generation for me.

Oh yeah and DLSS will shift this even further.
 
Last edited:
Basically it's just a rehash of the old 720p60hz vs 1080p30hz debate.(Personally I thought 720p60hz was better for most things.)
 
Bollocks. Gaming on a 4k 48" screen is wayyyyyy more immersive than 27" 1440p. This is especially true for single player games. I will only use smaller monitors for competitive FPS

9H52Avf.jpg

This is my setup 25" vs 48" , like who in the right mind would choose the smaller screen for immersive gaming ? Sure , 4k is unnecessarily taxing but not running 4k on this beautiful OLED screen is a crime .
 
Last edited:
billyxci said:
lmfao you getting so worked up over an emoji?

i know that facts, thanks. have a good day :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I just find it petty. Because it is. Its basically being passive aggressive because oh no he said its "wrong". Its an opinion as well ;) I can be wrong too, but I'm defending my stance over your preferences with facts, projection is a hell of a thing ;) cheers.
 
Ultrawide 1440p team checking in!
Totally agreed. Had TV that I used as a monitor for some time twas great and all, suffered to get games at native but it was a stunner, and the screen real estate was so good for work and shit.
"Downgraded" to an Ultrawide 1440p@144 screen and I was legit blown away.....I never see less than 100fps altho from 90 onwards I really cant tell the difference if im honest, but its smooth and if I really want to push I can downsample from higher resolutions to get some extra detail.
But as is right now, this is my sweetspot.

Unfortunately I might be abandoning my brothers.
If the RTX4080ti is priced correctly and performs great, Ill be migrating to a 4K 32" 144Hz Monitor.
Just need to wait for that 4080Ti announcement.
 
I'd say a 4k screen is still worth it but mostly because modern upscaling techniques are so good. Native 4k is essentially pointless now.
 
I got the Series X to play Halo Infinite on a 1080p gaming monitor at 120hz. On my 24" monitor, the 1080 is perfectly adequate. On your 65" living room TV set, it's going to be a different story. It really depends on the size of your display, the game and your performance targets.

It does make a lot of sense to play certain games on a monitor, especially FPS games where you want a desk/mouse anyway, and take advantage of freeing up resources from res to put into graphics/framerate.
 
Fahdis said:
I just find it petty. Because it is. Its basically being passive aggressive because oh no he said its "wrong". Its an opinion as well ;) I can be wrong too, but I'm defending my stance over your preferences with facts, projection is a hell of a thing ;) cheers.
Click to expand...
yeah it's opinion. they can't be wrong. everyones opinion is valid but you got so upset over one.

cheers. now stop replying to me :messenger_tears_of_joy::messenger_tears_of_joy::messenger_tears_of_joy::messenger_tears_of_joy:
 
OverHeat said:
Bought a 1440p 240hz monitor to go along my almost 4K ultra wide monitor and LG CX OLED. And seriously on a 27´ monitor with a 3090 playing at high framerate is a game changer it look crisp but the main draw is the smoothness of it all 240 fps doom eternal is pure sex!
Click to expand...

Here, here. 1440p at high framerates is glorious. More than happy with that.
 
I don't think twice about running my PC at 1440p on my 55" 4K OLED if need be. Typically, I just use the resolution scaling slider and adjust down until I hit a frame rate I'm comfortable with. End of the day, frame rate is simply more important and I'll sacrifice a little image clarity for that every time.
 
I have a 4k tv with ps5/xsx, but my pc is a 1080p 60hz. I only have an 3060ti so i will use it a long as possible in 1080p. If i would use it for 1440p i would have to change it 2-3years sooner.
 
Thaedolus said:
Resolution in general offers hugely diminished returns for the power required to run at a decent frame rate. I bet I could hardly tell the difference between 1440p content and 4k content on my C1, but 30FPS and 60 are night and day apart.
Click to expand...
While not as noticeable as the 30-60 leap, you could probably tell. 1440 is great in general, but small elements tend to have a lot of breakup which gives it away. things like fine lines.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Switch 2 vs 1440p - What is happening?
2 3
110
3K
Spukc replied
  • Poll
In Your Opinion, the most Overrated game system (console)
5 6 7 8 9
423
806
S0ULZB0URNE replied
  • Poll
Playstation is about graphics, in your opinion is Ghost of Yotei a step back compared to other ps5 games?
2 3 4 5 6
273
877
Fake replied
Hogwarts Legacy Switch 2 version: ~1440p docked and 1080p portable.
News  2 3
142
4K
Kataploom replied
Hardware Unboxed - FSR4 is even better at 4K
Analysis  2
84
4K
Fake replied
Top Bottom