Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I am leaning towards it simply because I figure a gaming PC should at least play at the same resolution as a console. On a PlayStation I always choose better graphics over frame rates. I also don't like first person games, which seem to benefit most from higher frame rates.Depends. I am happily playing games on my PS5 where the choice is between 4K 30 fps and 1440p 60 fps. I choose 1440p and it looks perfectly fine upscaled to my LG C9.
On PC you can see the difference in games with a lot of small details, like say RDR2. But when you are actually playing the game rather than looking at every tiny detail, it gets harder to tell the difference.
IMO chasing native 4K is a fool's errand at this point when you can barely get solid 60 fps on high end GPUs. Running a bit lower render res with image sharpening or using DLSS gives you similar results with increased framerates.
I am leaning towards it simply because I figure a gaming PC should at least play at the same resolution as a console. On a PlayStation I always choose better graphics over frame rates. I also don't like first person games, which seem to benefit most from higher frame rates.
On big games open games yes, but there is some exception I thinkNo console game plays at 4K, the internal render resolution is upscaled to 4K on output from anything as low as 720 based on engine demand and the performance of the dynamic resolution scaling.
There were native 4K games towards the end of the last generation, and there certainly are many many more with the new generation. Yes, many ran somewhere in between HD and UHD.No console game plays at 4K, the internal render resolution is upscaled to 4K on output from anything as low as 720 based on engine demand and the performance of the dynamic resolution scaling.
On big games open games yes, but there is some exception I think
I think there is some (well closed constant scenario like NBA 2k21):
PS4 pro even has it at 4K native with visual downgrades on that one.
I think it is the other way around, the smaller the screen the more pixel density you tend to want, a small phone screen is probably where you want the highest density and on a movie theater where the lowest DPI can work very well (2K on giant IMAX do work quite well and it become very fast for someone with a 20/20 vision to not be able to distinguish 4K and 2K on a movie theater screen size has you go up in movie theater rows).Either way, what matters is how the display looks. On a big screen you absolutely want as much pixel density as possible, 4K @ 40" has the same pixel density as 1440p @ 27".
That what they do, analyse output footage to detect pixels and they usually can make the difference between 1800p and 2160pthey can only make guesses based on how the pixels look
DPI is way more a eyes distance from the screen requirement than a screen size and the bigger the screen the farther away you tend to be.
Even a very close oled 4K tv usage will be a bit farther away from your eye than the usual smartphone usage no ?Have you looked at the setups people use here?
Even a very close oled 4K tv usage will be a bit farther away from your eye than the usual smartphone usage no ?
Regardless if you are at 2 feet of both a 100inch or a 20 inch monitor, why would you want the pixel density of the 100inch monitor to be higher than the 20 inch monitor, not just the same pixel density ?
Exactly the same pixel density the same result, you are shifting from same pixel density in my sentence to same resolution.Resolution is entirely about pixel density. A 100" display and a 20" display that are both the same resolution, the 100" display will look far worse because the same number of pixels are spread out over a much larger surface area. The way your post is worded I feel like i'm missing something here.
As far as I know (unless i'm mistaken) there's no way they can actually prove this just from looking at the output of the game, they can only make guesses based on how the pixels look. But hey if i'm wrong then good for consoles.
Either way, what matters is how the display looks. On a big screen you absolutely want as much pixel density as possible, 4K @ 40" has the same pixel density as 1440p @ 27".
The quality of the display definitely matters. My IPS gaming monitor looks terrible compared to a quantum dot VA or OLED television.Quality of Pixels > Quantity of Pixels.
I moved from 1440P,144hz,GSYNC to 4K,120hz,GSYNC (+ HDR) and the difference was amazing. However, I think the difference has more to do with the 4K display being OLED than actually the resolution itself.
You want a display that can do 120hz or more and has minimal pixel smear/overshoot. This will help your experience much more than sheer resolution.
I just want more polygons. A simple example would be scrolls on tables in Valhalla. They look octagon shaped at the end even at 2560x1440. These are the details that I wonder about looking better in 4K.PPI aside most games I've played (on PC) scale the level of detail (LoD) depending on resolution, so one graphical benefit going from 1440p to 4K is one can ordinarily expect an increase in details such as in the distance. This is the same whether playing on a native resolution monitor or just downsampling (DSR, etc). That said the LoD improvement ime isn't as noticeable as say going from 1080p to 1440p in that regard.
Even prior to 4K monitors becoming mainstream/available there were those that would play downsampled 4K+ (particularly with titles a few years old) for the image quality benefits.
I just want more polygons. A simple example would be scrolls on tables in Valhalla. They look octagon shaped at the end even at 2560x1440. These are the details that I wonder about looking better in 4K.