4K medium quality at 45fps vs 1080p ultra quality at 60fps

cvinh

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 4, 2009
Messages
1,738
Also depends on the size of the screen but I'd rather have the smoothness of 60 fps probably.
 

ccwilder3

n00b
Joined
Apr 12, 2017
Messages
35
Thanks for the replies.

I'm currently using a Samsung 32" 1080p TV at 60hz for a monitor. It's also my main TV. My 980ti has no problem keeping everything at 60fps on ultra settings at 1080p.

I want to upgrade to a 50" 4K TV. The benchmarks I've ran show my system doing 35fps to 55fps at 4K on medium settings. While not great, it would be playable.

I just don't want the visuals to look like crap.
 
D

Deleted member 88227

Guest
I game on my 4K, 65" TV with a 980 Ti on my HTPC. I also game on my 24" 1080P monitor with a 1080.

Other than the obvious fact that one is a lot larger than the other I can't really tell a visual difference. I sit like 2ft from my monitor and like 7ft from my TV. They both look good. The 1080 on the 1080P monitor plays a lot smoother, but it's not really all that noticeable.
 

H-street

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 25, 2005
Messages
4,538
There is a setting I believe you can run your internal resolution at 4K and it just outputs 1080p. I would try that to gauge your performance
 

Krenum

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 29, 2005
Messages
18,434
Depends on the game textures. I'd rather play at 60fps than play at 4K at 45fps with a game that has low res textures.
 

dgz

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 15, 2010
Messages
5,838
Depends on the game. Multiplayer is low 1080@120 but I am always willing to shed some frames in the name of beauty, at least on first play. Sometimes it's worth it. I love eye candy.
 

Domingo

Fully [H]
Joined
Jul 30, 2004
Messages
20,092
To me, framerate wins every time. At least if you're forced to choose.

Here's a fun trick, though - you can often have the best of both worlds. Many games these days have an resolution render % slider available. That allows you to set your resolution to 4K with max details, and then dial down the render % until you can pull 60fps. With my GTX1080, that's usually between 65-70%...which is still quite a bit better than just sticking with 1080p. It's usually in the 1440p range.
Not every game has that setting, but most major releases from the last few years do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: T4rd
like this

T4rd

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 8, 2009
Messages
18,949
To me, framerate wins every time. At least if you're forced to choose.

Here's a fun trick, though - you can often have the best of both worlds. Many games these days have an resolution render % slider available. That allows you to set your resolution to 4K with max details, and then dial down the render % until you can pull 60fps. With my GTX1080, that's usually between 65-70%...which is still quite a bit better than just sticking with 1080p. It's usually in the 1440p range.
Not every game has that setting, but most major releases from the last few years do.

Yeah, resolution scaling is pretty awesome in the games that support it. I hope it becomes standard in all PC games at some point, because many console games do the exact same thing already. With that option, it allows you to squeeze the very best performance your machine can muster while having a pretty minor impact on image quality in demanding areas.
 

Youn

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 22, 2007
Messages
5,861
1080p ultra quality at 60fps without a doubt, for most games anyways
 

Domingo

Fully [H]
Joined
Jul 30, 2004
Messages
20,092
Does 1440p look that much better than 1080p? Is it worth the cost of a new monitor?

I'm not sure there is an easy answer to that. It depends on whether you have the hardware to push 1440p, monitor size, other features, cost, etc.
Generally speaking, it usually takes at least an Nvidia 9-series card to push 1080p/60 across the board and a 10-series card to do the same at 1440p. If you need 120hz or have lesser hardware, that complicates things a bit. Personally, I'd say "no" in most instances, but I still feel 4K isn't that huge of a jump. To me, the jump from 720p to 1080p felt bigger than 1080p to 4K.
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
7,109
I can't speak for games, but I can speak for film.

The jump from 720p to 1080p was a much bigger jump in perceived sharpness than the one from 1080p to 4k.
People forget that 1080 was the standard... not just for TVs but for the motion picture industry for a long time. So 1080p projection on 100' screens was normal. Most people didn't even notice the switch from 1080p to 4k in theaters (an application in which you'd think you'd notice it most) unless they were told. 4K figuratively became a war with Regal vs AMC to be able to use 4k projection as a marketing gimmick.
It of course should be noted that viewing distance plays a part in that, still solidly shot or downsampled 1080p footage looks incredibly clean, even at large sizes.

So, with all that said, it seems to me the better option is to take the 1080p at a faster frame rate with better graphics. This is especially true if your monitor is capable of perfectly scaling the image at 4:1 pixels natively, meaning there will be no apparent loss of sharpness.
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
59,116
I stick with whatever resolution allows me to keep the eye candy maxed out. Native / higher resolution means nothing if your texture settings, lighting, and other visuals have to be knocked down a considerable amount.
 

ccwilder3

n00b
Joined
Apr 12, 2017
Messages
35
I appreciate the advice. I think I will stay with the high frame rate 1080p on ultra settings for games.

If I get a 4K TV I will just use it as a TV, not a monitor.
 

Domingo

Fully [H]
Joined
Jul 30, 2004
Messages
20,092
I appreciate the advice. I think I will stay with the high frame rate 1080p on ultra settings for games.

If I get a 4K TV I will just use it as a TV, not a monitor.

There's no reason you can't use a 4K monitor for 1080p games. I play about 1/2 my games at 1080p on a 4K TV. It can also offer additional advantages like HDR and resolution scaling options.
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
59,116
high frame rate is just so irreplacably great for gaming.

As long as I can sustain 60FPS I'm fine. I've had 144Hz 2560x1440 monitors in the past and didn't much care for the lack of screen real estate. I'd much rather have a larger display that's limited to 60Hz with better contrasts, HDR, etc. I do miss G-Sync, but I've tried going to something that was 3440x1440 @ 100Hz and couldn't make it a single day.
 

greyboxer

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 23, 2017
Messages
291
As long as I can sustain 60FPS I'm fine. I've had 144Hz 2560x1440 monitors in the past and didn't much care for the lack of screen real estate. I'd much rather have a larger display that's limited to 60Hz with better contrasts, HDR, etc. I do miss G-Sync, but I've tried going to something that was 3440x1440 @ 100Hz and couldn't make it a single day.

Wow, see I felt that anything over 1440p at 27" for example, was completely overkill for how close I sit to my monitor. I have really enjoyed the 1440p life for a while, and recently upgraded to 165hz and its really amazing. Some games are stuck at 60fps though, but otherwise its just buttery goodness.
 

Domingo

Fully [H]
Joined
Jul 30, 2004
Messages
20,092
Personally, I've grown fond of couch gaming on a large television and I can't go back to a monitor on a desk. Hopefully at some point (HDMI 2.1?) we'll see some big TV's that will do legit 100+Hz.
While I don't feel the framerates above 60 offer the same impact as the jump from ~40-60fps, they are still noticeable. For me 120'ish feels like the point where I can't really notice anymore.
Plus, at that point you're probably playing older games or rocking a beastly setup. You're also forced to use gsync/freesync or dealing with screen tearing. I'd go back to 30fps before I'd allow screen tearing.
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
59,116
Wow, see I felt that anything over 1440p at 27" for example, was completely overkill for how close I sit to my monitor. I have really enjoyed the 1440p life for a while, and recently upgraded to 165hz and its really amazing. Some games are stuck at 60fps though, but otherwise its just buttery goodness.

Like I've said, I'm a good three feet from my display, and 49" is perfect. I can't imagine going with less. Then again, I have an array of 30" 2560x1600 monitors for years, so this 49" display is actually a reduction in size. It's roughly the same as the 3x27" setup I had. Although the viewing angles on those were shit and made them unusuable in portrait mode. That's what made me go with the 48" JU6700, which failed on me and got replaced by the KS8500.
 
D

Deleted member 278999

Guest
Thanks for the replies.

I'm currently using a Samsung 32" 1080p TV at 60hz for a monitor. It's also my main TV. My 980ti has no problem keeping everything at 60fps on ultra settings at 1080p.

I want to upgrade to a 50" 4K TV. The benchmarks I've ran show my system doing 35fps to 55fps at 4K on medium settings. While not great, it would be playable.

I just don't want the visuals to look like crap.

One thing to remember is that most people who run 4K don't run MSAA.

I run 2K and still do AA. Most games are just fine. Some go down to 70 FPS on my 980 Ti.
 
Top