TheGecko
Banned
I have used some real nice VA, The black smear kills me though. I almost got me a G7 last week but I hate curved screens.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
I have used some real nice VA, The black smear kills me though. I almost got me a G7 last week but I hate curved screens.
rofif
Can’t Git Gud
For sure.
I was never lucky with VA. Not only the smear but I always had bad pixels with Va for some reason.
Good IPS really is better if you set it up properly. You know, light in the room, lower brightness, maybe ambient behind it.
Best if it's glossy - really helps perceived black levels
Balducci30
Member
I agree for video games, it’s a very minute difference for me playing on my tv
jshaver488
Member
I mostly agree, but some things still don’t show much detail even in 4K. Like vegetation or a character at a distance. Maybe that’s just lod though and not a resolution thing
If you haven't tried it then you are not qualified to make that statement.
I think 4K is more important than raytracing though. The latter tanks framerate for very little visual improvement.
But I agree DLSS is a viable solution to native 4K.
FukuDaruma
Member
Resolution differences are independent of the game. It's not like the difference between 1440p and 4K is higher or lower only on Destiny for a magic reason.
In Spiderman you have 4K at 30fps with raytracing enabled or *upscaled* 4K at 60fps without raytracing. But you have the best compromise in the Performance RT mode, with 60fps with raytracing at 1440p.
Besides that, in PC Doom 2016 or Doom Eternal are games that can run at native 4K60 without needing a top tier expensive gpu like a 3080 or 3090, but games this optimized that run that well are rare exceptions, not the norm.
Last edited:
FukuDaruma
Member
Unless you are a competitive player, almost nobody targets 144fps. Hz display mode doesn't equal fps.
The usual options, specially on consoles, are either 4K30 or downscaled 1440p60.
Seems we are never going to agree on this. In my opinion Horizon Forbidden West 4K30 feels like ass. Of course I already tried it. I don't need my brain to get used to it. Your brain can get used to anything, but as soon as you change from the 60fps to 30fps your brain goes "just what the actual fuck is this shit!?"
HFW had a shimmering problem in the Performance mode they just finally solved in the last patch. It was a problem with the game that the first one didn't have, and didn't have to do with resolution.
I'm the biggest hater of aliasing and shimmering, but again, that doesn't have to do with resolution, but having a good AA tech. Unless you are oversampling from 8K or beyond with an array of 3090's or some absurdity like that, 4K doesn't make much of a difference. The improvement is little, not huge (but yeah, these are subjective appreciations). In my opinion, Dark Souls 3 at 4K with FXAA still looks like ass compared to Elden Ring at 1440p with TAA, and I think mostly anybody would agree with that.
Last edited:
Chronicle
Member
But that has nothing to do with the resolution. It has to do with the power of your console or pc. Because 4k is inherently better if it runs at 240p.
Fredrik
Member
Thinking about jumping in on such a screen. I used to have a three screen setup but now I only have a single 24” screen, it’s a significant downgrade especially for racing.
But I tried a super ultra wide a couple years ago but then it felt like half the games were stretched or needed hacks.
How are they in 2022 for regular 16:9 content? Can you lock in to 16:9 in the center of the screen and get old games to play without stretching if there is only fullscreen mode?
What about performance? What do you need to play at Ultra? Are we talking about an i9 and 3090 build or else you need to drop the quality to medium?
Last edited:
Lucifers Beard
Member
4K obviously looks better and there is absolutely no disputing that. However, it’s simply not worth it for the frame rate hit in most games. 1440p still looks amazing and you can still get great FPS.
Dr.D00p
Member
BabyYoda
Banned
Most games should run fine at 1440p60 with your card, unless the rest of your setup is terrible.
mrqs
Member
4K HDR is the biggest jump I've got in gaming since the PS4 "next-gen" moment. It can be looked as a waste for people with bad monitors and/or uncalibrated tvs, but that's far from the truth.
Of course, a 1440p game can look great, but the crispy nature of true 4K with HDR cannot be understated. I got so enamored by 4k hdr gaming that I've sold my PC (windows hdr is crap and hdr pc monitors are mostly bad) and now I'm a console player on my OLED tv. I've been a hardcore PC gamer for the better part of this last decade.
Of course, a 1440p game can look great, but the crispy nature of true 4K with HDR cannot be understated. I got so enamored by 4k hdr gaming that I've sold my PC (windows hdr is crap and hdr pc monitors are mostly bad) and now I'm a console player on my OLED tv. I've been a hardcore PC gamer for the better part of this last decade.
Lucifers Beard
Member
I play at 4K occasionally, but the cost it has against framerate is disproportionate. I’d much rather have 1440p60+ over 4K30
Mister Wolf
Gold Member
I'm starting to prefer native 4K more and more.
OverHeat
« generous god »
Mister Wolf
Gold Member
But that framerate60fps…
I know. I was playing Baldurs Gate 3 yesterday toggling between native 4K at 60fps or 4K DLSS Quality and I can clearly spot the difference. Same when I play Doom Eternal. Before I would say I'm content with the image DLSS produces but now if I can hit 60-70fps at native 4K then I'd rather have that. 4K is the only resolution where I don't see any fuzziness playing on a 65" sitting 5-6 feet away from the screen
Last edited:
Belthazar
Member
That's lod and it would probably look better if the target resolution was lower, as the overhead would allow for the lod to be less aggressive.
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
The trade off for the higher frames at 1440p is so worth it. I had a 4K monitor and sold it off for a 1440p at 165hz. It was well worth it for me.
LiquidMetal14
hide your water-based mammals
It's hard to argue the resolution bump in clarity even on a 28" Odyssey G7 like I have. When on an 83" OLED, those bumps are apparent.
Little Mac
Member
InfiniteCombo
Banned
Hot5pur
Member
The below discussion is more targeted at PC monitors.
I think saying things like "4k" and "1440p" is meaningless. It really all comes down to PPI:
So a 4K monitor only becomes "useful" at 32" and above, anything below that is a waste and you likely won't see a difference.
I would say a 1440P 27" monitor is probably the sweet spot for gaming these days. You get the high fps and fairly high PPI. Also you don't need to buy a very expensive GPU.
Does a 32" 4K look noticeably better than a 27" 1440 P, I would say yes, having spent quite a bit of time on both. Is it worth the GPU requirement and framerate loss, that's subjective, but if you're not a competitive gamer or an FPS junkie, 4K60FPS is probably more enjoyable.
As for raytracing, it's still early days, but there are games where it makes a tangible difference. You do get massive FPS drops, but turning on DLSS recovers it with minimal visual quality loss. Not using DLSS when your card has dedicated hardware for it is just silly, especially when playing at 4k.
Raytracing examples in The Ascent, Cyberpunk 2077, Metro Exodus Enhanced, Control, and Dying Light 2 are good examples. It's not night and day, but once you understand what games need to do to look more photorealistic you start appreciating it and prefer having it on.
I think saying things like "4k" and "1440p" is meaningless. It really all comes down to PPI:
So a 4K monitor only becomes "useful" at 32" and above, anything below that is a waste and you likely won't see a difference.
I would say a 1440P 27" monitor is probably the sweet spot for gaming these days. You get the high fps and fairly high PPI. Also you don't need to buy a very expensive GPU.
Does a 32" 4K look noticeably better than a 27" 1440 P, I would say yes, having spent quite a bit of time on both. Is it worth the GPU requirement and framerate loss, that's subjective, but if you're not a competitive gamer or an FPS junkie, 4K60FPS is probably more enjoyable.
As for raytracing, it's still early days, but there are games where it makes a tangible difference. You do get massive FPS drops, but turning on DLSS recovers it with minimal visual quality loss. Not using DLSS when your card has dedicated hardware for it is just silly, especially when playing at 4k.
Raytracing examples in The Ascent, Cyberpunk 2077, Metro Exodus Enhanced, Control, and Dying Light 2 are good examples. It's not night and day, but once you understand what games need to do to look more photorealistic you start appreciating it and prefer having it on.
Fredrik
Member
Just bought a 1440p 27” screen, upgraded from 1080p 24”.
Feels like a decent upgrade. I think it’s mostly about the screen size and screen tech than resolution though.
Only tried some No Man’s Sky, looks niiice and still runs smooth. It’ll be interesting to see the performance in Cyberpunk…
Feels like a decent upgrade. I think it’s mostly about the screen size and screen tech than resolution though.
Only tried some No Man’s Sky, looks niiice and still runs smooth. It’ll be interesting to see the performance in Cyberpunk…
HerjansEagleFeeder
Member
I'm seeing a huge difference in sharpness between my 4K 27" monitor and my 5K 27" monitor. Obviously I'm not gaming at 5K. But the quality difference is very noticeable from a normal viewing distance.
alabtrosMyster
Banned
I got a bigger TV now, every bit of resolution counts!
amigastar
Member
Whats the model for 5k?
HerjansEagleFeeder
Member
27MD5KL-B
ZywyPL
Banned
I swear we're going through this every decade or so:
-1280x1024 is too much, 800x600 is fine;
-1920x1080 is a waste, 1680x1050 is just as good;
-4K is pointless, 1440p is the sweet-spot;
-8K...
Last edited:
grfunkulus
Banned
Right? Why do people pretend that resolutions between 1440p and 4k don't exist? Or that you absolutely need fancy reconstruction techniques to achieve a passable image? If the dev implementing it isn't top tier, they're probably better off just rendering somewhere above 1440p but significantly below 4k
El Pistolero
Banned
Native is better, no doubt, but hitting it at the cost of framerate/interesting graphical features is not worth it, in my opinion.
Last edited:
Dust-by-Monday
Member
No. 1440p looks pixelated because of the low PPI.
Corporal.Hicks
Member
There's no perfect / universal resolution, because everything change depending on viewing distance, display size, and even eyesight quality. Many gamers wear glasses in order to correct their vision, but each diptre change natural size of the objects, so even with perfect correction people with glasses cant really appreciate higher resolutions,. I wear glasses as well, and with such correction 1080p from around two meters is more than enough for me, but when I do my eye exercises and i can see perfectly even without glasses, only then I can really appreciate higher resolutions because my eyes can finally see smallest fine details.
Last edited:
OverHeat
« generous god »
Not on a 27 inch monitor…
ZoukGalaxy
Member
It really depend of the size of your screen and how far your are
Try it on 105" OLED screen at close distance for immersion and be blown away.
Try it on 105" OLED screen at close distance for immersion and be blown away.
Fredrik
Member
No kidding, I looked at this screen today…It really depend of the size of your screen and how far your are
Try it on 105" OLED screen at close distance for immersion and be blown away.
Absolute insanity.
But in the end I couldn’t take the plunge, too much money. Went with a regular 27” 1440p screen instead, the boring and sane choice. I’ll forever have a super ultra wide on my wishlist for a future rig though.
Last edited:
Mozzarella
Member
For gaming i agree
For real life videos like a tourist walking tour i disagree.
For real life videos like a tourist walking tour i disagree.
VA panels have superior contrast and black levels compared to IPS panels
I don't think we will ever need to push past 4K resolution, even on a large screen. Doom Eternal looks mind boggling on my 77" LG C1.
I shudder to think of the hardware required to run a game at 8K. Now that seems pointless.
Last edited: