Target for 4k or stick to 1440p?

G

gazoza

n00b
Joined
Feb 5, 2019
Messages
3
Hi all,

I'm planning to upgrade my PC (Radeon HD7850 with a 24' 1080p monitor atm), and i'm looking for some advice from you guys.

I would like to be able have max graphics settings on a 32` 4k or alternatively on a 27` 1440p monitors, on the games below:
- Civ V, VI
- Sports games (FIFA, NBA, Football Manager)
- Racing games (Project Cars, NFS etc.)
- Dota 2 (non-competitive)
- The occasional Fallout 3, single player.

Was looking initially for an GTX1070 Ti/RTX2060 which I think would be enough for 1440p, but do you think it can handle the above not so demanding (?) games on 4k?

Thanks a lot!
 
Look at some of the Vega 64 cards out there they should be good value for the money (most of them on sale) and would handle 1440p without any problem.
 
I have an RTX 2060 and don't recommend it for for above 1080p. Is your 24in monitor g-sync/freesync? If not, look at a new 1080p monitor as 24in is still a great size, though maxed, with g-sync/freesync. 4K gaming just isn't there yet, especially if you're on a budget.
 
"Low end" cards certainly will not do anything AAA in 4k . You can however downscale to 1080 as it's the same aspect ratio as 4k.

That said I enjoy a bunch of games in 4k with a RX 580 8gb.

No Man's Sky, Elite Dangerous, Diablo3, WH4K Mechanicus all play great and look great for me.

And even Anthem at around 30FPS was fun but I seem to have more tolerance for lowish FPS than the 144FPS minimum crowd...

For all other purposes a 32" 4k screen is something I would not want to part with at this stage. And eventually of course I'll get a more powerful GPU.
 
I recommend you to get vega 64 instead of RTX 2060 or 1070ti, as the performance of vega 64 is slighty better than the both card and you will get it for lower price than RTX 2060 and 1070ti
 
defaultluser said:
You don't have a particularly demanding list of games there. You would probably be very happy with an RX 580 at 1440p (three times the performance of your current card),

4k is overkill, until you get more cheaper panels with > 60hz support.

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod...tion=rx580&cm_re=rx580-_-14-150-794-_-Product
Click to expand...

Nothing overkill about 4k for real estate on a daily basis.

Lots of games look downright amazing in 4k. Really depends on the genre if 60fps+ is a must too.
 
Last edited:
gazoza said:
Hi all,

I'm planning to upgrade my PC (Radeon HD7850 with a 24' 1080p monitor atm), and i'm looking for some advice from you guys.

I would like to be able have max graphics settings on a 32` 4k or alternatively on a 27` 1440p monitors, on the games below:
- Civ V, VI
- Sports games (FIFA, NBA, Football Manager)
- Racing games (Project Cars, NFS etc.)
- Dota 2 (non-competitive)
- The occasional Fallout 3, single player.

Was looking initially for an GTX1070 Ti/RTX2060 which I think would be enough for 1440p, but do you think it can handle the above not so demanding (?) games on 4k?

Thanks a lot!
Click to expand...
Why not just get a TV that's 4K that does 2K as well. Mine is a TCL 4 Series 55" that runs both 4K 4:4:4 and 1440 at 60 Hz. Low input lag and it's 350 bucks. You can even go smaller shooting around 43" and save some $$$. Don't go 49" tho, that one has a screen door effect on the LCD.

You can likely find other TVs out there that allow you to do multiple resolutions at 60Hz and 4:4:4 Chroma, however, none will be as affordable. Most won't offer much of a value over the TCL either. The Quantum LED Samsung I had was barely better looking than my 55" TCL. It was also twice the price and 6" smaller than my TCL.
 
Krenum said:
1440p with a high refresh rate. You'll want smoother gameplay over visual quality in the long run. 4K may look awesome, but in the event that 60hz gives you tearing or jutter you'll be distracted by it.
Click to expand...


Freesync?
 
Auer said:
Freesync?
Click to expand...

That or G sync depending on what graphics card OP wants to go with. I wouldn't suggest doing Gysnc on a Freesync monitor unless it is on the compatibility list, mine is not and has been a hassle, but it still works.
 
+1 for 1440p high refresh rate

Krenum said:
That or G sync depending on what graphics card OP wants to go with. I wouldn't suggest doing Gysnc on a Freesync monitor unless it is on the compatibility list, mine is not and has been a hassle, but it still works.
Click to expand...

No problems at all on mine.
 
I say 1440. Everything about it is cheaper, and the experience is generally better.

I wasn't satisfied playing games at 4K even with a 1080 Ti. I can't really imagine it going better with a 1070, even if you're not playing the latest AAA games. 4K is just too many pixels right now.
 
I used to think high refresh rate monitors were more hype than anything. Until I played on one and realized how wrong I was.

I used to think 4k gaming was more hype than anything. Then I played on one and knew I was right.
 
To me being able to use no or very little AA is a real benefit visually.

AA's softness doesn't appeal to me at all. Not in games, not in cameras etc... Like a cheesecloth selfie camera filter...

Again, everyone's different. But for me high pixel density and real estate is where it's at.

Sharpness /resolution rules. It's not something you can add if you don't have it to begin with.
 
RamonGTP said:
I used to think high refresh rate monitors were more hype than anything. Until I played on one and realized how wrong I was.

I used to think 4k gaming was more hype than anything. Then I played on one and knew I was right.
Click to expand...
This * 10.

*Sync + High Refresh at 1440p > 4k IMHO.
 
Personally I'd go 1440p ultrawide with a higher refresh rate. I play on my X34 at 3440x1440 @ 100Hz and prefer gaming on it most of the time over my 55" LG C6 at 4K @ 60Hz.

The GTX 1070 Ti and RTX 2060 cards are more suited for 1440p than 4K. Especially the RTX 2060 since it only has 6GB of VRAM.
 
gazoza said:
Hi all,

I'm planning to upgrade my PC (Radeon HD7850 with a 24' 1080p monitor atm), and i'm looking for some advice from you guys.

I would like to be able have max graphics settings on a 32` 4k or alternatively on a 27` 1440p monitors, on the games below:
- Civ V, VI
- Sports games (FIFA, NBA, Football Manager)
- Racing games (Project Cars, NFS etc.)
- Dota 2 (non-competitive)
- The occasional Fallout 3, single player.

Was looking initially for an GTX1070 Ti/RTX2060 which I think would be enough for 1440p, but do you think it can handle the above not so demanding (?) games on 4k?

Thanks a lot!
Click to expand...

Pretty much all of those games you mention are ideal for a an ultrawide @ 1440p. Id recommend a 34" 3440 x 1440 screen if it fits into your budget. Id go with freesync now that nvidia supports it ( kind of , you may want to check supported monitors ) it leaves you with options to plug in anything else in the future. The PPI on the 34 & 35" UW's is pretty much ideal.
 
It's really going to come down to your tolerances for a couple things:

FPS. Do you care about dips into to the 40's and 50's or are you set on 60fps all the time? I'm a 60 or nothing gamer in most instances.

Screen Tearing. Do you notice it or care about it? It drives me bonkers but some people don't even notice it. If you disable vsync you'll get an immediate performance boost that can range from 10-15% to upwards of 30-40% in a few games.
If you have a Freesync (ATI) or Gsync (Nvidia) monitor, that will alleviate the tearing so that performance boost is essentially "free."
 
Thanks for all the answers guys!

It seems that opinions are really torn about it :).

I really liked the idea of the ultrawide.
It seems that it can combine screen real estate, sharpness and refresh rate with little compromise.
Black bars on movies is one of them, correct?

I was checking right now and interestingly 27" @1440p has the same pixel density as an Ultrawide 34" @1440p(3440*1440) .
I saw some monitors @100hz with Freesync, and i really liked the design too.

Any suggestions or shortcomings that i might be missing?
It sounds that a GPU of 1070 Ti performance class would be enough right?

As for my tolerances i think i'm somewhere in the middle.
Now that i think about it, sharpness is more important than these two as another use case is heavy text work (programming).
Also a game's immersion might make you forget about all that stuff, if nothing's too pronounced i guess.
 
I have a 1070 vanilla and haven't found a game I cant' max out @ 1440p. Dips to the 50s in fps is as low as it's gotten thus far.
That said a 580 could do 1440p high settings just fine(I replaced mine with the 1070) and if I am honest I don't really notice the difference 90 percent of the time.
 
RamonGTP said:
I used to think high refresh rate monitors were more hype than anything. Until I played on one and realized how wrong I was.

I used to think 4k gaming was more hype than anything. Then I played on one and knew I was right.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'll recommend 1440p at high refresh rate to anyone looking for the best overall gaming experience.

I do really like gaming on a ~40" 4K screen, but there's really nothing (reasonable) out there for high refresh displays and the GPU horsepower required to drive it just makes that setup insanely expensive.
 
4K is something else at 200% scaling in windows and apps, 27". I guess 32" too. No more grainy crap.
But I have not tried in games so I do not know how it will be with 1080p (exact scaling) or 1440p scaling if needed for smooth play (i have this display at work).
 
riffcho said:
4K is something else at 200% scaling in windows and apps, 27". I guess 32" too. No more grainy crap.
But I have not tried in games so I do not know how it will be with 1080p (exact scaling) or 1440p scaling if needed for smooth play (i have this display at work).
Click to expand...

It scales really well to 1080p if needed.

At 32" 125% windows scaling is perfect.
 
I have found 4K isn't worth it in games. It has little to do with performance really. Or Antialiasing. For me and the games I'm playing, once i adjust the settings, I haven't found a title that I haven't been able to get to run acceptably on my GTX980, which is decrepit compared to what everyone else is recommending.

It's just the fact that a lot of games, particularly older titles, can't handle scaling the UI at all.

Now, for just every day use, I love my 4K monitors. But for gaming... not really a fan.
 
1070ti will be enough for 1440 just took mine out and replaced with a 2080 not much difference at all if ya need a 1070ti make you adeal..
 
I have a 1440p 144Hz 27" TN and a 4K 60Hz 40" VA and I prefer most games on the 27 for what it's worth

I do like turn based on the 40 though and for productivity its awesome

A native 120 Hz 4k that can also do 1440 is a good option also
 
I've tried just about everything, and I'm using a 34" ultrawide now and I love it.

Of course, 4K has the highest picture quality, but at what cost?

When you do the math, the cost benefit isn't really there and 1440p with all the settings and high refresh is a better experience for me.
 
gazoza said:
Thanks for all the answers guys!

It seems that opinions are really torn about it :).

I really liked the idea of the ultrawide.
It seems that it can combine screen real estate, sharpness and refresh rate with little compromise.
Black bars on movies is one of them, correct?

I was checking right now and interestingly 27" @1440p has the same pixel density as an Ultrawide 34" @1440p(3440*1440) .
I saw some monitors @100hz with Freesync, and i really liked the design too.

Any suggestions or shortcomings that i might be missing?
It sounds that a GPU of 1070 Ti performance class would be enough right?

As for my tolerances i think i'm somewhere in the middle.
Now that i think about it, sharpness is more important than these two as another use case is heavy text work (programming).
Also a game's immersion might make you forget about all that stuff, if nothing's too pronounced i guess.
Click to expand...
1070 Ti or Vega 64 would be perfect in either case. If you want an RTX card I can't recommend anything less than a 2080.

The ultrawide would give you more real estate to snap program windows around, which would really be the only advantage to it over the standard 16:9 with programming. I personally like to have more vertical space for programming, which you could do if you mount the ultrawide to an articulating arm and rotate to portrait.

For gaming ultrawide support is getting better and more widespread, but it's still a niche. The nice thing is you still get a 27" 2560x1440 display if you have to pillarbox it. And as I always say for people going ultrawide: you want to make friends with Widescreen Gaming Forum.
 
gazoza said:
Thanks for all the answers guys!

It seems that opinions are really torn about it :).

I really liked the idea of the ultrawide.
It seems that it can combine screen real estate, sharpness and refresh rate with little compromise.
Black bars on movies is one of them, correct?

I was checking right now and interestingly 27" @1440p has the same pixel density as an Ultrawide 34" @1440p(3440*1440) .
I saw some monitors @100hz with Freesync, and i really liked the design too.

Any suggestions or shortcomings that i might be missing?
It sounds that a GPU of 1070 Ti performance class would be enough right?

As for my tolerances i think i'm somewhere in the middle.
Now that i think about it, sharpness is more important than these two as another use case is heavy text work (programming).
Also a game's immersion might make you forget about all that stuff, if nothing's too pronounced i guess.
Click to expand...

To me ultrawides are awesome for work but not great for gaming. Lots of games don't support the aspect ratio properly and to me the wider aspect ratio does not give much benefit either. I would rather have a bigger 4K 16:9 aspect ratio screen.
 
Organik said:
If you want 4k gaming you must pay 1400 to 1500 dollars for a 2080Ti .. You will get 60fps and some dips. Or go with 1440p with all nv panel settings set to On and set to max, all AA methods and what not and get 150fps avg. Once you do all the AA methods and 1440p you will not see jaggies. Unless you stare at something for seconds and become picky lol,
Click to expand...

Lots of games out there that look great and play well in 4k @ 40fps or so.

Not all games require 150fps.
 
  • Like
Reactions: amenx
like this
Auer said:
Lots of games out there that look great and play well in 4k @ 40fps or so.

Not all games require 150fps.
Click to expand...


But you are still stuck paying a $350 premium for equivalent performance at the given resolutions.

I.e, (ignoring RTX) a $700 RTX 2080 with mid-range 4k performance. A $350 RTX 2060 with mid-range 1440p performance.

That's TWICE THE PRICE, all to power a not-so-perceptual difference in resolution.

Call me back when you can run AAA titles at 4k at more than low settings on a 2060.

120 Hz 4k monitors cost twice what equivalent top-end 1440p 120hz monitors cost. And you'll pay twice the price for the video card to be able to drive them, as well.
 
Last edited:
If you can't see the difference in pixel density between 4k and the rest then I guess it doesn't matter.

To me it looks a lot better.

/shrug
 
Auer said:
If you can't see the difference in pixel density between 4k and the rest then I guess it doesn't matter.

To me it looks a lot better.

/shrug
Click to expand...


Not at less than 35", for normal gaming monitor view distances. If you stick your head a foot away, then yeah I'd expect you to see a difference :D

And it's going to be another year before you have 120hz 4k monitors available in those size ranges between 35 and 40".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Auer
like this
People seems to forget monitors are not limited to native resolutions.
1440p will look sharper on native 1440p monitor than 1440p on 2160p but nothing that will be immediately noticeable let alone distracting after just five minutes of gameplay.

My best algorithm for choosing monitor is this: if you need to use windows scaling with given PPI then get monitor with lower resolution until 100% is comfortable then do not go any lower.
For most people sight it will be 1440p for 27", for many even larger 1440p monitor.
If 2160p can be used comfortably at given size then 1440p will have visible screen door...
 
NKD said:
had 4k, but switched to samsung 32inch CGH70 1440p 144hz. Haven't looked back. Shit is simply amazing lol.
Click to expand...
And all you had to do is update it right before you start using it?
I ordered mine should be here after the weekend :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top