4k gaming or stick to 1080p for the next 2 to 3 years?

J

jarablue

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 31, 2003
Messages
1,365
I see everyone talking about 4k gaming. For the desktop I can see why 4k would be of use. But is it that noticeable gaming between 4k and 1080p? Other than the tax burden on the video card.

I would love to get into a 4k desktop. But gaming right now seems like a novelty. What are you guys going to do in the next 3 years? Keep your 1080p setup or go with 4k? Also 4k on anything less than a 32 inch monitor would make me squint. I think 40 inches would be a nice monitor for 4k. What is your minimum acceptable monitor size for 4k? TV's seem like a nice option here for that size.

I am going to wait another 2 years maybe until 4k is really the standard and then upgrade. 4k seems to new to me still.
 
I would wait till you can afford/is available a gpu and monitor to do 75hz+ in 4k
 
I love my 4K setup for work and gaming, but it's nice to be able to scale back to 1080p if I want to crank up the settings. If gaming is a novelty for you, there's no urgent reason to invest in a top of the line GPU + 4K monitor/TV. If you work with a lot of open windows or are a writer or coder, the extra screen real estate with 4K is really nice.
 
I like to game, but at 4k I can't justify the investment over 1080p. For desktop usage I can. I just am waiting for a good more time for the hardware to settle and have more choices.

What is a good deal on a 4k monitor that has really good 2d/desktop performance? 3d is great too don't get me wrong. Anything in the ballpark of 40inches that is really nice?
 
Last edited:
I've tried both 4k and ultrawide 21:9 (3440x1440). I'm sticking with the ultrawide for now. Most new games support it fairly well, and a good number of older games do as well. It's not nearly as hard to get >60fps consistently, and it seems more "immersive" than a regular 16:9 1080p or 4k IMO.

It's great for productivity/desktop work as well, since you can get nearly two full windows side-by-side, and still have readable text.
 
I only have a 980Ti and it runs 4k stuff just fine. Sometimes it's 4k @ med settings instead of 1440p @ ultra but everything runs 60fps+. I'm going to have to get a 1080 Ti whenever that comes out i think but for now it's working fine. I think 4K on a 28" wouldn't be all that great but i recently got a 43" and it's fucking awesome. Playing on a big screen with super clear graphics is just amazing and also you can always do a custom 21:9 letterbox if a game supports it which also cuts down on the processing power you need.
 
Bandalo said:
I've tried both 4k and ultrawide 21:9 (3440x1440). I'm sticking with the ultrawide for now. Most new games support it fairly well, and a good number of older games do as well. It's not nearly as hard to get >60fps consistently, and it seems more "immersive" than a regular 16:9 1080p or 4k IMO.

It's great for productivity/desktop work as well, since you can get nearly two full windows side-by-side, and still have readable text.
Click to expand...
except fing OW... <grumble> <grumble>
 
Shadohh said:
except fing OW... <grumble> <grumble>
Click to expand...

Luckily for me I'm old and stick with single player games. I want to have fun after a long day at work, not spend my time getting my butt kicked by 11 year olds who play 18+ hrs a day.
 
I'll be sticking with 1440p for a good while. The jump to 4k looks nice, but it's not worth the performance tax (to me). I'd much rather maintain higher framerates and/or max settings.
 
4k is best used if you play a lot of the following:

1) Graphically unintensive games, such as, for example, isometric games, or older games.
2) If you like big screens, as in 30"+

1080p is best used if you don't like spending money for top of the line GPU with some decent 4k, or if you prefer high refresh rates.

If you can wait though, high refresh rate 4k is on the way. While the necessary GPU power required to drive 4k at 144hz is still LONG way to go (at least 2 micro archs, if not more), but for the most part, 1440p looks surprisingly well on a 4k screen (impressive, given that 4k is not a whole number multiple of 1440p), so you can choose between 1440p/144hz or 4k, depending on game and taste.

But given the choice right now, I'd generally pick refresh rate over resolution, because there are ways to pump up visual fidelity (via DSR or tools like GeDoSaTo), but refresh rates is often set in stone.
 
chenw said:
4k is best used if you play a lot of the following:

1) Graphically unintensive games, such as, for example, isometric games, or older games.
2) If you like big screens, as in 30"+

1080p is best used if you don't like spending money for top of the line GPU with some decent 4k, or if you prefer high refresh rates.

If you can wait though, high refresh rate 4k is on the way. While the necessary GPU power required to drive 4k at 144hz is still LONG way to go (at least 2 micro archs, if not more), but for the most part, 1440p looks surprisingly well on a 4k screen (impressive, given that 4k is not a whole number multiple of 1440p), so you can choose between 1440p/144hz or 4k, depending on game and taste.

But given the choice right now, I'd generally pick refresh rate over resolution, because there are ways to pump up visual fidelity (via DSR or tools like GeDoSaTo), but refresh rates is often set in stone.
Click to expand...

4k at 144hz is here today. Just buy 2 of the new nvidia titans that are coming out later this year ;)
 
Sometimes I wish I had stuck with 1080p, but then I remember how awesome gaming at 4K is (if you've got powerful enough hardware).

Let's be frank here... Windows is STILL not nearly ready for high resolution high pixel density displays. UI scaling in all versions of Windows, even Windows 10, is an absolutely horrid mess. It's downright embarrassing. It's why sometimes I even find myself setting my desktop resolution to 1080p even though I have a 4K monitor. It's worth dealing with a fuzzy upscaled UI at 1080p versus Windows scaling at 4K.

But my god, gaming and media consumption at 4K are heavenly.
 
Seventyfive said:
4k at 144hz is here today. Just buy 2 of the new nvidia titans that are coming out later this year ;)
Click to expand...

Relying to SLI to hit that hz is, by my definition, not ready, especially if they are Titans.

Obviously, it depends from person to person, but my definition of 'ready' is 60fps minimum (not average) on TW3 with maxed details (plus hairworks) at the said resolution. Currently 1080 can't even do that at 1440p.

4k on Single is still generation away, 144hz still several.

But the main point of the post I made was made in regards to monitors. the 4k 144hz Asus had on display (no pun intended) at computex is a prototype, so actual consumer level product is still unknown. The only 4k/120hz monitor we know of is still nowhere to be seen (Dell's UP3017Q, though that monitor is going to be tasty).
 
jarablue said:
I see everyone talking about 4k gaming. For the desktop I can see why 4k would be of use. But is it that noticeable gaming between 4k and 1080p? Other than the tax burden on the video card.

I would love to get into a 4k desktop. But gaming right now seems like a novelty. What are you guys going to do in the next 3 years? Keep your 1080p setup or go with 4k? Also 4k on anything less than a 32 inch monitor would make me squint. I think 40 inches would be a nice monitor for 4k. What is your minimum acceptable monitor size for 4k? TV's seem like a nice option here for that size.

I am going to wait another 2 years maybe until 4k is really the standard and then upgrade. 4k seems to new to me still.
Click to expand...
If you have the money for a capable video card, a 40" 4K monitor is amazing. I made the switch to a Wasabi Mango 40" UHD400 and a 1070. I am extremely impressed. But it was not a cheap upgrade to say the least, for most people. I now use my 1440P dell ultrasharp as a secondary monitor.
 
I did that too, was originally running 970 SLI and bought a 32" 4k monitor, but the loss of one of the 970 (had to transplant it) actually forced me to revert to my 1440p, using 4k as a secondary 1440p monitor.

This is one of the time where the best performer is not the best card. MSI's GTX 970 is the ONLY 970 which came with only 1 DP, and BL3201PT only supports HDMI 1.4 lol.

Tempting as it is to upgrade that single 970, 1070 doesn't impress me (it is essentially a newer and more VRAM'ed 980ti) and 1080 isn't enough for the price. Pitan X might have the perf I am looking for, but I need to wait until October before I buy this.
 
chenw said:
Relying to SLI to hit that hz is, by my definition, not ready, especially if they are Titans.

Obviously, it depends from person to person, but my definition of 'ready' is 60fps minimum (not average) on TW3 with maxed details (plus hairworks) at the said resolution. Currently 1080 can't even do that at 1440p.

4k on Single is still generation away, 144hz still several.

But the main point of the post I made was made in regards to monitors. the 4k 144hz Asus had on display (no pun intended) at computex is a prototype, so actual consumer level product is still unknown. The only 4k/120hz monitor we know of is still nowhere to be seen (Dell's UP3017Q, though that monitor is going to be tasty).
Click to expand...

i agree with you, i was just joking because who is spending $2200 on videocards other than someone who just got some fat IPO money
 
1440P is better than 4K at the moment due to extra FPS with 1440P

You will notice a big difference from 1080P
 
Sitting that close to a 43" screen.. does it feel too close when you play games? What games are you playing?
 
I really don't like the idea of 21:9 that is 34" (at most) that is just so much less physical area than a 16:9 40"+ screen.

People say the widescreen is immersive, but something bigger at the same distance is more immersive to me. There is more height and width and pixels, it wins in all categories to me.
Of course that is if can one afford good enough graphics cards to run it...

What I really want is something like a 55" 4k 4:4:4 @ 120hz (but doesn't seem to exist yet)
 
limxdul said:
Sitting that close to a 43" screen.. does it feel too close when you play games? What games are you playing?
Click to expand...
Pixel density, my friend. When you're reading a book, do your arms in your peripheral vision feel too close?
StormClaw said:
Damn this looks huge. Won't your eyes tire from constantly having to look up/down/sides ?
Click to expand...
Yep, it's a wall of a screen. Actually it's more natural for your eyes and head to move around. It's unnatural to have a small screen and stare at 1 spot.
 
StormClaw said:
Damn this looks huge. Won't your eyes tire from constantly having to look up/down/sides ?
Click to expand...

Do your eyes stay fixated in one position normally in your day to day activities? No... consciously or not your eyes dart about constantly second to second. If anything I'd say staring at a tiny 24" screen is abnormal as far as eye motion is concerned, but that's just my opinion. I think having a large format display is easier on the eyes and your neck, but I'm aware that goes against what most other people believe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top