4k 120 Hz question REDUX - do we even need it? (3080 reviews in)

DarkSideA8

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Messages
276
Help me understand framerates vs refresh rate, please.

I've just read a bunch of 3080 reviews and I'm seeing 4k frames at or around 60 fps. Some are getting as high as the 80s, and very few into the 100s.

SO - - before reading these articles I thought I would wait for a 32 " 4k 120hz monitor as the holy grail of pc gaming. But do I really need to if the games can't get to 120 fps?
 
Joined
Dec 1, 2011
Messages
868
At the very least, some headroom above what the game is outputting would be ideal. Especially if you're running G-Sync/Freesync.

Also, there's a fair chance a new display will carry over to your next system, which will almost certainly be able to produce a higher framerate.
 

KazeoHin

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
8,141
I run 4K 120Hz. I used to have a 2080Ti and sold it, so I was able to drive it with decent FPS. The truth is that with Freesync, you don't need to lock your FPS to any one amount. being able to adjust your in-game settings to sit at 100FPS minimum and allow fluid spikes above is truly a wonderful experience.

And in my mind, for gaming you don't need 4K for any screen size below 32". I have the Asus ROG 43" and its quite an amazing experience to have such a massive screen with per-inch detail on par with a 21" 1080p screen. But if I were the type who wants to use a 24-27" screen, I would argue 4K was a waste of performance and best and worthless placebo at worst.
 

DarkSideA8

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Messages
276
I run 4K 120Hz. I used to have a 2080Ti and sold it, so I was able to drive it with decent FPS. The truth is that with Freesync, you don't need to lock your FPS to any one amount. being able to adjust your in-game settings to sit at 100FPS minimum and allow fluid spikes above is truly a wonderful experience.

And in my mind, for gaming you don't need 4K for any screen size below 32". I have the Asus ROG 43" and its quite an amazing experience to have such a massive screen with per-inch detail on par with a 21" 1080p screen. But if I were the type who wants to use a 24-27" screen, I would argue 4K was a waste of performance and best and worthless placebo at worst.
I agree - 27 is too small to need /benefit from 4k. But 40+ seems too big for desktop use. That's why I am looking for 32-inch.

Where do you have the 43? How far are you from the screen?
 

KazeoHin

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
8,141
I agree - 27 is too small to need /benefit from 4k. But 40+ seems too big for desktop use. That's why I am looking for 32-inch.

Where do you have the 43? How far are you from the screen?
Quick hypothetical: 43" may seem too big, but what about 4x 21" in a grid?

Most people would say they would not mind having 4 screens, its great for productivity.
But having one screen with the same real-estate (in both size and pixels) as the smaller 4 combined? for some reason that's where people draw the line.

I rarely full-screen applications, and the ones I do Full-screen are videos, games, or things like Unreal Engine or Blender where you have 5-10 viewports open at a given time.
 

DarkSideA8

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Messages
276
Quick hypothetical: 43" may seem too big, but what about 4x 21" in a grid?

Most people would say they would not mind having 4 screens, its great for productivity.
But having one screen with the same real-estate (in both size and pixels) as the smaller 4 combined? for some reason that's where people draw the line.

I rarely full-screen applications, and the ones I do Full-screen are videos, games, or things like Unreal Engine or Blender where you have 5-10 viewports open at a given time.
...
...
...
Hmmmm...
...
I... Had not thought of this.

Okay - tell me this: how does your screen work for text /general productivity? B/c much as I would like to just have a dedicated gaming machine - I have to do work on mine as well (generally heavy text based with some spreadsheets etc.)

Guessing you're using sized windows - not full screen - does the scaling work?
 

KazeoHin

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
8,141
...
...
...
Hmmmm...
...
I... Had not thought of this.

Okay - tell me this: how does your screen work for text /general productivity? B/c much as I would like to just have a dedicated gaming machine - I have to do work on mine as well (generally heavy text based with some spreadsheets etc.)

Guessing you're using sized windows - not full screen - does the scaling work?
I use the same text scaling you might use on 4x 21" 1080p monitors.

AKA: none. 100%. 1-to-1 pixel scaling. When I relax and put my feet up, I'll Control+Wheel my zoom level in certain apps like websites, but I'll zoom back out when I sit up.
 

kasakka

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
1,847
120 fps is still possible if you drop to 1440p or use some in between res. It also feels much better on the desktop. Some games like Doom Eternal or older titles can run at 4k 120 fps.

To me it’s useful headroom as above 60 fps is still better than hitting the 60 fps limit constantly and getting tearing.
 

ors

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 30, 2016
Messages
208
But if I were the type who wants to use a 24-27" screen, I would argue 4K was a waste of performance and best and worthless placebo at worst.
For gaming yes. For text based stuff, not at all. High PPI has it's place and we should strive to move to that. On 24" you now have integer scaling support, so you game in 1080p and work in 4k, best of both worlds. This should be the norm in monitors, would be even nicer to have higher refresh in lower resolution, but that seems to be the outlier instead of the norm.
 

DarkSideA8

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Messages
276
So I went to Best Buy to stare at screens today.*

I generally sit about 38 - 42 inches from the monitor. So I got about that distance from several TVs to see what I could see. Learned some things:
  • At that distance, a 32" 1080p looks bad. The spaces between the pixels are visible. Ugh.
  • A 43 inch 4k looks good - nice and sharp... But there is so much screen space that - at this distance - it seems like my eyes would get tired flicking around the screen. In fact there seems to be so much screen space that it requires head movement to go from the center of the screen to the corners.
  • A 40 inch 4k looked like it was about the max, but still 'felt big' for computer use at that distance...but might be a good choice that could be 'gotten used to'
  • The 32, again, felt like a perfect size for a large computer monitor - but does need much denser pixels than the store had available.
* also they never got any 3080s in stock
 

CyJackX

n00b
Joined
Apr 8, 2015
Messages
14
Yeah, everything's either 27" or the 43"ers at 120HZ.
My 40" Samsung JU6500 has served me well, but I want to get up to 120hz. But while 40" is slightly too big (I have to remember to look at corners), I'm auditioning 27" by reducing the resolution of my monitor without scaling (simulating a 2560x1440 with blackbars). IDK what it would be like to have the DPI of 4k at 27" but probably a little cramped. Doesn't seem to be many good in-betweens. Just the 1k+ Asus and Acer 43" and all the 27".

The games can probalby get to 120hz...it's a matter of how good looking you want those textures to be...
 

madpistol

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 17, 2020
Messages
273
Do we "need" 4k120?

No.

However, as someone with an LG CX OLED that is capable of doing 4k120, let me just say.... it's nice. Like... really nice. Even on gimped HDMI 2.0b that can only do 4k120 @ 4:2:0 Chroma, it's really nice. I am very much looking forward to getting my grubby paws on a 3080 or 3090 for some 4k120+HDR+GSYNC action!


EDIT: Let me follow up on this. For the longest time, resolution was the holy grail. Then, for gaming, it became responsiveness and refresh rate. Then it turned to Adaptive refresh rates. Then it turned to HDR. Technology is constantly changing, but with all of this new display tech, I think we've established something that a lot of normal people don't seem to grasp; resolution is only a part of the equation. With OLED, we now have quality of pixels as well as high resolution and high refresh rates. There's a reason so many swear by their LG C9 and CX TVs as gaming displays; the pixel quality is top notch. As time goes on, this sort of quality of pixels will be paramount in the continuing development of display technologies.

So do we need 4k120? No. What we need is a display that can output perfect colors at high refresh rates, adaptive refresh rates, fast response times, and extreme longevity of the tech. OLED is there... except for longevity of the tech. Once they solve that issue, we will be in a golden era of displays.
 
Last edited:

Nenu

[H]ardened
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
19,343
Help me understand framerates vs refresh rate, please.

I've just read a bunch of 3080 reviews and I'm seeing 4k frames at or around 60 fps. Some are getting as high as the 80s, and very few into the 100s.

SO - - before reading these articles I thought I would wait for a 32 " 4k 120hz monitor as the holy grail of pc gaming. But do I really need to if the games can't get to 120 fps?
Its not about need, its whether you like higher refresh/framerate enough.
There are other benefits too.

I'm a happy 60Hz guy for most things but racing games I appreciate the faster screen update at 120Hz and higher framerate, it gives me an edge.
So I race at 1440p120Hz on my TV.
Also, part of the display lag is reduced because each frame takes half the time to be drawn, making the car more responsive.
And using windows is nicer at 120Hz refresh because the mouse moves a lot smoother.
...

You should try 120hz and see if you prefer it enough to want to pay for it.
 
Top