Support NeoGAF

[Klik]

So yesterday i tried some 4k gaming and honestly i couldn't see that much difference compared to my 1440p. My 1440p is 27",4k is on 28" monitor. For console gaming,it probably is worth especially if you have 55"+ tv..

But you definitely notice downgrade in fps.

I'll get RTX 5080 when it comes out and its probably gonna last me for lot of years on my 1440p monitor.

Until most of GPU's can run 8K res at decent settings,i dont think its worth upgrade to 4k in between

 

[vaibhavpisal]

Maybe try playing on 4k for a few months and then going back to 1440p?

That would be proper testing.

 

[Bry0]

I don’t know, for general browsing I think 4K is easily noticeable. I went from 1440p 27” to 4K 32” and the razor sharp text clarity and high ppi makes general use very nice. you can even skip out on AA and everything looks clean still in games too. I have a 4080 and things run well enough, I use DLSS quality when available, I have no problem with how it looks.

 

[Arsic]

Like suggested above — play 4K exclusive for a month then try going back. It will look blurry.

 

[Black_Stride]

At those sizes you are absolutely right.

But alot of PC gamers game on TVs that are 40" and above, the resolution becomes more noticeable as you go up in size.


If you have a 1440p monitor most of the modern GPU/CPU combos will get you well past the finish line even with RayTracing.
Add in DLSS and I really dont think the hardware market is as doom and gloom as some would have you believe.

 

[Denton]

For me it is not worth upgrading from decade old 1080p 60hz panny plasma tbh

thanks to DLDSR

 

[analog_future]

If you don't see a difference with 4K, you're certainly not going to see a difference with 8k.

 

[Draugoth]

10 Years in First World Countries

25 Years in the rest of the world

 

[T4keD0wN]

Your monitors are the same size it should look way better on the 4k one.

4k is worth it to upgrade to as long as its at a bigger, but not significantly bigger screen size since too big of an increase in size can result in lower pixel density.

I have 3 monitors (1080p, 1440p and 2160p) right next to each other, I use the 1440p monitor for everything outside of work (and poorly optimized games) because everything looks better on it as the 4k one is too big and has half as many pixels per inch, but in your case, the 4k one should be far superior (although sticking to 1440p for performance reasons is also very valid)

Native 8k is much heavier than 4k, youll be waiting a while.

 

[Andrea23]

4k 48" @120hz used as a monitor (so about 40-50 centimeters away from the screen).
91 ppi.
So, in terms of definition, it's exactly 4 paired 24" 1080p monitors.

Impossible to go back...

 

[HeisenbergFX4]

At 27" or so totally stick with 1440p you wont start seeing the benefits of 4k until 32" imo

 

[StereoVsn]

I think at 27” monitor size the benefit of 4K for gaming is somewhat iffy. For productivity there are clear benefits though.

However as you bump up that size to 32” and larger, 4K is pretty damn great due to increased pixel density. I am using a 42” LG OLED as my gaming monitor and separate UW for productivity and I would not want to go back to 1440P.

 

[Mr Moose]

You'd notice it easily on a larger screen.

 

[BennyBlanco]

I have a 1440p/ 144 monitor and a 4k/ 120 LG CX hooked up to my computer and barely use the monitor anymore. Only for CIV.

 

[bitbydeath]

If you don't see a different with 4K, you're certainly not going to see a different with 8k.

8K is where there’s now enough pixels available that we begin to cross into uncanny valley territory. It’s a huge step up from 4K.

 

[RagnarokIV]

4k 42inch PG42UQ OLED - never going back.

 

[analog_future]

8K is where there’s now enough pixels available that we cross into uncanny valley territory. It’s a huge step up from 4K.

As someone that's played several games at 8k, no it isn't.

And rendering resolution doesn't do anything to cross a game into "uncanny valley territory". That's lighting/animation/physics/volumetrics/particle effects/and so on. Resolution gets you a sharper/clearer image with less aliasing.


And 4k is already past the point of diminishing returns for most people.

 

[rm082e]

It all depends on your configuration. But I would argue for games, the difference between QHD and UHD at relatively similar screen sizes is pretty minimal. In motion (not stills), a 27" QHD monitor at normal distance is going to look very sharp and smooth. AA techniques like DLSS will be a better means of smoothing out any aliasing than just jacking the native resolution higher and higher.

Personally, I play on a 32" QHD monitor. I know some people with better vision than me say the PPI is too low and would need a 4K panel at that size. My eyesight is slightly fuzzy at the normal distance I use my monitor, so I don't see any "screen door" effect. Would a 4K monitor be better? On paper it would, but if my brain doesn't have the ability to perceive the added benefit, it wouldn't be worth the frame rate hit.

From what I've seen, the biggest reasons to upgrade a gaming monitor are size and panel type, not resolution. An OLED monitor of the same dimensions and resolution as I have now would feel like a noticeable upgrade, but the same size and panel type at a higher res would not.

I also can't conceive of any reason to go beyond 5K on the resolution side. Assuming I'm still playing games 20 years from now, I don't think I will ever need an 8K monitor. A 40" (actually 39.5) monitor that is 5120x2880 is 148.72 PPI, which is almost 50% more than the highest PPI monitor I have ever owned.

 

[Gaiff]

1440p with a 27" monitor has a PPI of 108. 4K with a 28" monitor has a PPI of 157. You're above 100 PPI in either case. I wouldn't say there isn't a difference, there is one, but 1440p is perfectly acceptable at those sizes. Hell, I game at 3440x1440 on a 34" ultrawide and it's still fine.

On large displays though? 1440p suddenly becomes a meager 53 PPI and 4K is 80 PPI. That's quite a big difference. 4K on a 55" screen is equivalent to 1080p on a 27" screen. By contrast, 1440p on a 55" screen is equivalent to 720p on a 27" screen.

 

[MikeM]

Size matters. 4k on my 27” screen? No.

4k on my 65” OLED? Absolutely.

 

[Hudo]

I dunno, man. I do like a 32" 4K monitor for work.

 

[Dorfdad]

I’ve said it time and time again this generation should’ve been all about 1440 P120 frames.

This is 100% what consul should’ve been doing this gen

 

[Zheph]

1440p is the way

 

[HerjansEagleFeeder]

I totally understand the argument that 4K is not a great option from a price to performance ratio kind of perspective. It's still very expensive. However, the claim that people can't see a difference to me is just ridiculous. Maybe you need glasses, OP.

 

[HeisenbergFX4]

I totally understand the argument that 4K is not a great option from a price to performance ratio kind of perspective. It's still very expensive. However, the claim that people can't see a difference to me is just ridiculous. Maybe you need glasses, OP.

Its not hard to see the difference even at 27" but your eyes adjust very fast

I have way too many monitors and even donated several over the years but have had people see a 4k 28" monitor sitting next to a 27" 1440p and if you let someone play on one and leave the room awhile and switch feeds its hard for them to tell the difference when they play on the other (granted have only done this twice with my adult son and older father so super small sample size)

When you have them sit there and switch back and forth right in front of them the difference becomes much clearer

 

[U n i o n 0015]

I've got zero complaints sticking with 1440p. I've got a 4k monitor right next to my 1440p OLED and the resolution difference isn't pronounced enough to warrant jumping to 4k with all its increased GPU requirements.

 

[keefged4]

I have a 1440p 32" monitor and a 48" LG C1. If I had to choose only one It'd be the 4k C1 no competition., however at 27" there's no real reason to upgrade to 4k tbh.

 

[marjo]

Given typical display size/viewing distance, 4k is probably more worthwhile for PC gaming then it is for console gaming, but it's still a pretty minor improvement. There's so many better things you could do with extra performance overhead.

 

[Black_Stride]

I’ve said it time and time again this generation should’ve been all about 1440 P120 frames.

This is 100% what consul should’ve been doing this gen

I was with you until 120Hz.
Mate games are struggling to have a stable 60, you want devs to be aiming for 120?

 

[Kacho]

1440p is good enough for me for now, especially for the price. I can’t go back to 1080p after moving to 1440p though. Shit looks way too blurry. I wonder if I’ll feel the same about 1440p when I eventually upgrade to 4K.

 

[kikkis]

I would like better monitor but there really isn't anything substantially better on my price range. Current monitor is 1440p 144hz ips lg.

 

[hououinkyouma00]

I actually just returned the MSI 32” 4K/240 OLED because it was just too big for me. I don’t think I can do bigger then 27” as a monitor.

Anything bigger then 27” warrants more then 1440p for me though.

 

[ShakenG]

Cant see 8k, 60fps ever becoming a standard. 4k definitely but not 8K

 

[Trogdor1123]

8k on anything less than 50 inches doesn’t make too much sense

For my kids pcs I got them and 1440p 144 hz asus monitor and a Samsung odyssey g7. Those already seem excessive to me.

I get the old crappy 60 hz 1080p tv lol.

 

[rm082e]

I was with you until 120Hz.
Mate games are struggling to have a stable 60, you want devs to be aiming for 120?

Same. I think it makes sense to offer:

• "Quality" - max out the fidelity and aim for 30fps
• "Balanced" - use whatever is needed to hit a consistent 40fps for those with 120hz TVs
• "Performance" - use whatever is needed to hit a consistent 60fps, or more for the games that can handle it

That set of options would give everyone on console a good choice.

 

[jshackles]

1440p is fine for most PC gaming for me personally, but the real upgrade in resolution is going wider. I started with 21:9 ultrawide, now I'm rocking 32:9 ultrawide.

 

[MadchesterManc]

1440p is fine depending on the screen size I guess. I have my PC connected to a 48" 4K/120Hz TV so 4K is a decent upgrade for me, with added bonus of 120Hz. Can't see myself going back to 60Hz for 8K tho

 

[AV]

4k120 OLED TV for a monitor and good luck running new games at 4k120 any time soon. Future proofed probably until the children I don't have yet are in high school.

 

[twilo99]

32 inch 4k running at 165hz would be the next step up, problem being you might need a 5090 to get consistent 165fps across the board.

That would give you delicious pixel density with very smooth visuals

 

[Wildebeest]

8k 60fps seems like something for some ludicrous over 200-inch screen home cinema setup than something for a desktop pc.

 

[Gaiff]

I’ve said it time and time again this generation should’ve been all about 1440 P120 frames.

This is 100% what consul should’ve been doing this gen

Do you know what kind of hardware you need for 1440p/120fps with modern graphics? Consoles don't have it.

 

[Skifi28]

If your budget allows for upgrading GPU often and to the most expensive model it's great, but the sweet sport remains at 1440p for most people.

 

[Wildebeest]

Do you know what kind of hardware you need for 1440p/120fps with modern graphics? Consoles don't have it.

Seems like they couldn't even manage 1440p/30fps native with no latency from frame processing.

 

[Randall365]

1440p ultrawide is what all the cool people are doing.

 

[Hoddi]

I downgraded from 4k144 LCD to (ultrawide) 1440p OLED last year and I don't really miss 4k that much. Modern games are so reliant on blurry TAA that it's become harder to tell the difference than before.

I'll still get a 4k OLED monitor at some point but I'm in no rush.

 

[Dorfdad]

If you can’t get 1440p / 60 out of the series x or ps5 then the problem is your development and engine / skill levels. You’re not optimizing your game and just saying screw it. Remove your realistic clouds and shadows to make your game playable FFS.

 

[nikos]

3840x1600 ultrawide until good ~5120x2160 monitors release.

I value screen real estate, when I'm not gaming, as much as image quality.

 

[SlimySnake]

lol I cant imagine gaming on a 27 inch monitor in 2024. Thats fucking insane if you are rocking a 4080 or 4090. WTF.

You need to go OLED. You need to go big screen. You need great tvs with a far wider color range than what monitors, even expensive ones can offer. The tv is a much better upgrade than buying a $1000 card. Once you have a big 55-65 inch tv you can then think about upgrading your GPU.

I left monitor based PC gaming way back in 2013 or so. It was too small. Even the $400-500 monitors were just not good at colors or HDR. Gaming like movies is more immersive on giant screens in a dark room. We are not animals.

 

[nemiroff]

I recently went from a 32 inch 1440p monitor to a 32 inch UHD/4K monitor and it's not exactly hard to spot the difference.. In most cases more than worth it IMO. And if UHD is too much, in this scenario DLSS would fix most performance issues anyway.

..But would I upgrade from 1440p if I didn't have a "4090 PC"..? Idk.. Probably not actually. Especially not with a 27 inch. So, I can definitely see how this is a concern for some.

 

[Agent_4Seven]

I can buy 65'' OLED with 120Hz, miles better HDR + VRR support for the price of high end and outdated 4K monitor without VRR support and BS HDR. Damn, hard choice, can't decide.... Ugh, FFS.

PC Monitors and their makers can fuck right off with absolutely insane and unjustified prices.