Support NeoGAF

[Polygonal_Sprite]

2160p is obviously better than 1440p. People make the point that once you get to 1440p it’s diminishing returns in terms of image quality for massive amounts of performance lost on PC.

DLSS has obviously changed the game though not everyone owns an Nvidia card or even a modern Nvidia card to take advantage of it.

If you don’t own something crazy like a 3090 or 4080/4090 then yes 1440p is the sweet spot if we’re talking pure native resolutions for IQ vs performance.

 

[hououinkyouma00]

1440p for monitor
4K for tv (though 1440p TVs don't exist anyway)

I use a 27" monitor and 4K is in no way enough of an upgrade at that size to lose that much performance. If I were to go up to lets say 32 inches then maybe I would consider 4K but it's not at all worth it below that IMO.

My 3060ti also handles 1440p much better. PC hardware is too expensive these days for what you get and I'm not upgrading anytime soon.

 

[Corporal.Hicks]

Bro, you're virtually blind. I can't help your reliance on bogus charts and casual 'testing'. It's not marketing to say a 42-48 inch gaming monitor NEEDS to be 4k. But continue living like a plebe

Dude, why you have to do that? I don't disrespect you, even though I disagree with you, but for some strange reasone you behave like a jerk when you cant find any arguments that can support your beliefs. Visual accuity measurments are based on real science dude, and obviously ophthalmologists know much better than everybody else how much details human eyesight can see from any particular distance. You want to tell me, that you have more knowledge about eysight than real experts (ophthalmologists)?

Try to find the distance from your 4K display at which you can see the pixel structure. If you have 20/20 vision you will find that visual accuity distance measurements (unsurprisingly) are correct.

I have explained to you why people can see a big difference between 1080p/1440p vs 4K, because it's true that higher resolution improves the image quality, so I'm not denying that. All what I'm saying is this improvement has more to do with much supperior picture quality, not pixel density alone like you think. Dude, try playing some blurry TAA game like RDR2 on 1920x1080p display at native 1080p + TAA, and then play it at 4K downscaled to 1080p on the same monitor. You will see INSANE improvement in fine details, edges will look sharper, there will be less shimmering and pixel crowling, and all of that despite exactly the same pixel density. Only people who sit close to some big ass 4K tv (and use it as monitor) will really see benefits from 4K pixel density, bust most people either use much smaller monitors, or view it (sit) from much longer distance, so for most of us 4K displays arent even needed, so please dont suggest people have problems with their eyesight if they cant see the difference. Dude, I watch my 55'inch 4K TV from around 3 metres distance, so for me it's totally impossible to see pixel structure at this point, therefore I'm not benefiting from having 4K display. I bought 4K tv only because tv manufactures no longer make good 1080p panel displays, or not to mention 1440p.

 

[Puscifer]

The OP always makes some of the most aggressive threads. Did you not get enough love as a child?

People with 4K monitors and OLED televisions really can't shut the fuck up about either. Anyway, I have both an ASUS Rog 4k/144hz and Sony OLED televisions and honestly it's just a screen after a while and the benefits ware off, it's not this obvious long term change that people need to carry an elitist attitude about

 

[grfunkulus]

Dude, why you have to do that? I don't disrespect you, even though I disagree with you, but for some strange reasone you behave like a jerk when you cant find any arguments that can support your beliefs. Visual accuity measurments are based on real science dude, and obviously ophthalmologists know much better than everybody else how much details human eyesight can see from any particular distance. You want to tell me, that you have more knowledge about eysight than real experts (ophthalmologists)?

Try to find the distance from your 4K display at which you can see the pixel structure. If you have 20/20 vision you will find that visual accuity distance measurements (unsurprisingly) are correct.

I have explained to you why people can see a big difference between 1080p/1440p vs 4K, because it's true that higher resolution improves the image quality, so I'm not denying that. All what I'm saying is this improvement has more to do with much supperior picture quality, not pixel density alone like you think. Dude, try playing some blurry TAA game like RDR2 on 1920x1080p display at native 1080p + TAA, and then play it at 4K downscaled to 1080p on the same monitor. You will see INSANE improvement in fine details, edges will look sharper, there will be less shimmering and pixel crowling, and all of that despite exactly the same pixel density. Only people who sit close to some big ass 4K tv (and use it as monitor) will really see benefits from 4K pixel density, bust most people either use much smaller monitors, or view it (sit) from much longer distance, so for most of us 4K displays arent even needed, so please dont suggest people have problems with their eyesight if they cant see the difference. Dude, I watch my 55'inch 4K TV from around 3 metres distance, so for me it's totally impossible to see pixel structure at this point, therefore I'm not benefiting from having 4K display. I bought 4K tv only because tv manufactures no longer make good 1080p panel displays, or not to mention 1440p.

Dude, why you have to do that? I don't disrespect you, even though I disagree with you, but for some strange reasone you behave like a jerk when you cant find any arguments that can support your beliefs. Visual accuity measurments are based on real science dude, and obviously ophthalmologists know much better than everybody else how much details human eyesight can see from any particular distance. You want to tell me, that you have more knowledge about eysight than real experts (ophthalmologists)?

Try to find the distance from your 4K display at which you can see the pixel structure. If you have 20/20 vision you will find that visual accuity distance measurements (unsurprisingly) are correct.

I have explained to you why people can see a big difference between 1080p/1440p vs 4K, because it's true that higher resolution improves the image quality, so I'm not denying that. All what I'm saying is this improvement has more to do with much supperior picture quality, not pixel density alone like you think. Dude, try playing some blurry TAA game like RDR2 on 1920x1080p display at native 1080p + TAA, and then play it at 4K downscaled to 1080p on the same monitor. You will see INSANE improvement in fine details, edges will look sharper, there will be less shimmering and pixel crowling, and all of that despite exactly the same pixel density. Only people who sit close to some big ass 4K tv (and use it as monitor) will really see benefits from 4K pixel density, bust most people either use much smaller monitors, or view it (sit) from much longer distance, so for most of us 4K displays arent even needed, so please dont suggest people have problems with their eyesight if they cant see the difference. Dude, I watch my 55'inch 4K TV from around 3 metres distance, so for me it's totally impossible to see pixel structure at this point, therefore I'm not benefiting from having 4K display. I bought 4K tv only because tv manufactures no longer make good 1080p panel displays, or not to mention 1440p.

Plenty of people use monitors bigger than 27 inches at 16/9. The computer monitor market has long since been inadequate in terms of picture quality and resolution options though. Even widescreen 1440p options are reaching the limits of how much oems should charge for what is effectively a stretched 1440p 27 inch. Why do you think even the highest end super ultrawides are still the same vertical height and hence, pixel density, as a 27 inch 16/9?

The introduction of 42 inch OLED monitors and 42 inch OLED tvs as monitors is filling a very really gap for users that want a bigger display without sacrificing sharpness.

I had a PS4 pro with a 1080p OLED for a while. The benefits of super sampling, even in games without Vaseline filters, was miniscule side by side with a 4k OLED. I'm not a republican. I'm not relying on my anecdotal evidence alone. Consumers with high end rigs aren't using dinky $300 1440p monitors. It's a mismatch in specs. I don't know why you're so personally invested in this contrarian narrative but you're wasting your breath and convincing no one. Do yourself a favor and pick up something halfway decent from Amazon, best buy, or microcenter that has a no hassle return policy. I'll wait.

 

[cinnamonandgravy]

4k120 is sexyyyyy.

been doing 4k40 on a 980ti for the longest time.
finally found a new 3090 for a "decent" price ($700), undervolted it and oo baby 4k120 + gsync is something to behold.

ps lol people posting vision graphs and saying "image quality cant improve beyond eliminating the screen door effect".
people were making the same exact arguments during the 720p/1080p days... and to be fair, its true for a lot of people. a lot of people just dont have excellent vision, and distance from the screen will compound this.
For example, on a small ass laptop screen, if you dont see a big difference in plain text between 1080p, 1440p, and 4k, your eyes probably arent as good as you may think.
downsampling helps, but is not a direct replacement for more physical pixels (assuming your screen has physical pixels, unlike a CRT).

 

[Mod of War]

Dial back the baited antagonism and vitriol.

Thank you.

 

[Corporal.Hicks]

Plenty of people use monitors bigger than 27 inches at 16/9. The computer monitor market has long since been inadequate in terms of picture quality and resolution options though. Even widescreen 1440p options are reaching the limits of how much oems should charge for what is effectively a stretched 1440p 27 inch. Why do you think even the highest end super ultrawides are still the same vertical height and hence, pixel density, as a 27 inch 16/9?

The introduction of 42 inch OLED monitors and 42 inch OLED tvs as monitors is filling a very really gap for users that want a bigger display without sacrificing sharpness.

I had a PS4 pro with a 1080p OLED for a while. The benefits of super sampling, even in games without Vaseline filters, was miniscule side by side with a 4k OLED. I'm not a republican. I'm not relying on my anecdotal evidence alone. Consumers with high end rigs aren't using dinky $300 1440p monitors. It's a mismatch in specs. I don't know why you're so personally invested in this contrarian narrative but you're wasting your breath and convincing no one. Do yourself a favor and pick up something halfway decent from Amazon, best buy, or microcenter that has a no hassle return policy. I'll wait.

PS4P downsampling isnt very good, because most games runs at sub 1440p. You need 4K native (that's corrects aspect actio when you want to downscale it to 1080p) for downsampling to look good. I wasnt impressed with PS4P picture quality, however on my PC DSR 4x with high quality 13-tap Gaussian filter (20% smoothness settings) there's a huge difference is in all TAA games.

 

[FlaffySheeby]

Aight, I don't have a problem if you think 4K is just a better deal overall. You do you my dude.

My only complaint is that there is no way a 4K Screen playing 1440p looks good at all. Even running 1080p on 1440p looks attrocious, so if you get an even bigger gap between the two you won't be happy playing on a lower resolution XD You buy into 4K, you play in 4K exclusively.

 

[YeulEmeralda]

1440p for monitor
4K for tv (though 1440p TVs don't exist anyway)

I use a 27" monitor and 4K is in no way enough of an upgrade at that size to lose that much performance. If I were to go up to lets say 32 inches then maybe I would consider 4K but it's not at all worth it below that IMO.

My 3060ti also handles 1440p much better. PC hardware is too expensive these days for what you get and I'm not upgrading anytime soon.

It's all about fun. Did we have fun when videogames were super VGA?

 

[grfunkulus]

PS4P downsampling isnt very good, because most games runs at sub 1440p. You need 4K native (that's corrects aspect actio when you want to downscale it to 1080p) for downsampling to look good. I wasnt impressed with PS4P picture quality, however on my PC DSR 4x with high quality 13-tap Gaussian filter (20% smoothness settings) there's a huge difference is in all TAA games.

Ooookkkkk, so you're going to use a native 4k image on a 1080p monitor with what I can only assume is a mid-high end GPU instead of just upgrading your monitor?

 

[bentanchorbolt]

Threads like these are silly because OP is operating under the assumption that he and people like him are the only ones who put real thought into decision making processes, which is arrogant and laughable.

This is an issue that requires context, such as screen size and distance away from the display. If you are gaming on a 55" or larger TV then 4K is obviously superior, but at 27" you are trading off a lot of performance for not a lot of perceptible clarity.

A 27" 1440p monitor has a higher pixel density than a 4K display at 55" so I guess OP should be shaming people with large displays for not opting to get 8k displays.

 

[Mister Wolf]

4K is for big screen TVs 55" and up. If you're sitting at a desktop in front of your little 27" or 32" monitor then 4K is a waste and you should be targeting high refresh rates at 1440p.

 

[Hoddi]

4K is for big screen TVs 55" and up. If you're sitting at a desktop in front of your little 27" or 32" monitor then 4K is a waste and you should be targeting high refresh rates at 1440p.

Nah, I have 27" 1440p and 4k monitors sitting side by side and there's a massive difference between them. I was never impressed with my previous upgrade from 1080p to 1440p while this was a much bigger improvement.

I wouldn't tell people to rush out and buy one though. There's more to IQ than just resolution and we can now buy ultrawide 1440p OLED monitors with much better colors and black levels. It's also a black hole for your framerates and wallet. But it's great as a side monitor and the difference is 100% visible no matter what anyone says even at 27".

It's just that framerate beats resolution.

 

[Mister Wolf]

Nah, I have 27" 1440p and 4k monitors sitting side by side and there's a massive difference between them. I was never impressed with my previous upgrade from 1080p to 1440p while this was a much bigger improvement.

I wouldn't tell people to rush out and buy one though. There's more to IQ than just resolution and we can now buy ultrawide 1440p OLED monitors with much better colors and black levels. It's also a black hole for your framerates and wallet. But it's great as a side monitor and the difference is 100% visible no matter what anyone says even at 27".

It's just that framerate beats resolution.

Would you pick a 4K 60hz monitor over a 1440p 120hz monitor at 27"?

 

[Sygma]

its because of pixel density and refresh rate. 4k is good from 32 inch as a monitor and above, and to game in good conditions anything under 120hz is unacceptable meaning that yeah you kind of need a system running games at the very least at 120fps at 4k

We're not there yet, 1440p can be played at 140hz / fps+ which is awesome for shooters, and the most competitive folks are still playing at 1080p on 240hz monitor because theres nothing better at the moment. Not everything is about resolution

 

[Hoddi]

Would you pick a 4K 60hz monitor over a 1440p 120hz monitor at 27"?

No, I wouldn't even consider it.

 

[Mister Wolf]

No, I wouldn't even consider it.

Now I'll flip it. I game on a 65" display sitting around 5 - 6ft away. I would take the 4K 60hz display without a second thought.

 

[Myths]

Call me strange but I actually like downscaling (4K on 1440P monitor). Similar to how you could watch 8K footage on YouTube on 1440P, the resultant heavy density of pixels per inch from sampling appears crispy (almost the reverse of upscaling using nearest neighbor except here it appears pixelated because of a surplus of pixel information and no linear sampling). Interesting.

 

[Hoddi]

Now I'll flip it. I game on a 65" display sitting around 5 - 6ft away. I would take the 4K 60hz display without a second thought.

Hah, fair point.

I do most of my console gaming on an old 1080p plasma. The better 60hz motion is the only reason that I'm still keeping it around. Downsampling solves most of the issues with TAA.

 

[Corporal.Hicks]

Ooookkkkk, so you're going to use a native 4k image on a 1080p monitor with what I can only assume is a mid-high end GPU instead of just upgrading your monitor?

My monitor is 1440p, but I also have:
- 1080p tv for PS4 / BD and PC games from 2000-2013 era
- 4K HDR tv for modern games
- 1024x768 plasma for 480p content (xbox classic, PS2) and PS3 / x360 games
- 21 CRT for 240p PSX / SNES

I just can't use one TV for everything, because depending on the content I get different results on all of these TVs. About 90% of the content I watch actualy looks the worst on my 4K TV. For example I have played the original dead space lately (before playing the remake) and this old game still holds up very well on my 32inch 1080p tv, but on on a 55-inch 4K TV, the same game looked a lot worse, as the textures were clearly up-scaled, and the low-poly models were also a lot more noticeable.

 

[names are for friends]

120Hz is overrated by people who can't go 240Hz, imo.

Every single thing you're buying is some sort of compromise. A 4K display is obviously more detailed and less shimmery, even on a 27" display, but then you're playing the game less smoothly.

So what's the point of this thread?

 

[Klik]

My laptop has a 1080p 165hz screen with a 3080ti w/ 32gb ram and I absolutely love it. Nothing to be ashamed of. Sometimes I use it with my curved 1440p widescreen, but im usually fine with 1080p on it.

With RTX 3080ti on 1080p you will play games on this laptop until 2035

Also you probably have 15-17" screen on that laptop so PPI is good so no worries if its "only" 1080p

 

[SeraphJan]

Every console should offer 1440p/60fps mode, not everyone is satisfied with 4K/30fps, even with 65 inch TV, at standard viewing distance 1440p is still more than enough

Console hardware are not powerful enough to provide 4K/60fps for good graphic titles, 9th gen is no exception, you only get 4K/60fps for cross gen graphic

 

[grfunkulus]

My monitor is 1440p, but I also have:
- 1080p tv for PS4 / BD and PC games from 2000-2013 era
- 4K HDR tv for modern games
- 1024x768 plasma for 480p content (xbox classic, PS2) and PS3 / x360 games
- 21 CRT for 240p PSX / SNES

I just can't use one TV for everything, because depending on the content I get different results on all of these TVs. About 90% of the content I watch actualy looks the worst on my 4K TV. For example I have played the original dead space lately (before playing the remake) and this old game still holds up very well on my 32inch 1080p tv, but on on a 55-inch 4K TV, the same game looked a lot worse, as the textures were clearly up-scaled, and the low-poly models were also a lot more noticeable.

What screen size is the 'enhanced' resolution plasma (that is what they used to call it, right?). And model? I will definitely back the idea that xbox 360/ps3 era games look best on a really good 720p tv that has strong image processing. I suppose the 1080p lcd could look as good in some scenarios but it looked better than the plasma with OG dead space?

At one point I had this guy. 768p and Sony's top spec. Everything looked good on it, including standard def tv which was almost unimaginable on a lot of early-ish lcds. Very niche product so I'm assuming it didn't sell well and was shortly discontinued https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod...32XBR4_KDL_32XBR4_32_BRAVIA_XBR.html/overview

Was thinking about this one from Best Buy. Pricey and has unneeded smart tv features but over picture quality should be better than most of the old stuff. Not QLED though like some of the 43 inchers from Samsung which are the only other thing I would consider. That's slightly larger and (even) pricier than I'd want to go though.

https://www.bestbuy.com/site/sony-32-class-w830k-hd-led-google-tv/6505561.p?skuId=6505561

 

[Corporal.Hicks]

What screen size is the 'enhanced' resolution plasma (that is what they used to call it, right?). And model? I will definitely back the idea that xbox 360/ps3 era games look best on a really good 720p tv that has strong image processing. I suppose the 1080p lcd could look as good in some scenarios but it looked better than the plasma with OG dead space?

At one point I had this guy. 768p and Sony's top spec. Everything looked good on it, including standard def tv which was almost unimaginable on a lot of early-ish lcds. Very niche product so I'm assuming it didn't sell well and was shortly discontinued https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod...32XBR4_KDL_32XBR4_32_BRAVIA_XBR.html/overview

Was thinking about this one from Best Buy. Pricey and has unneeded smart tv features but over picture quality should be better than most of the old stuff. Not QLED though like some of the 43 inchers from Samsung which are the only other thing I would consider. That's slightly larger and (even) pricier than I'd want to go though.

https://www.bestbuy.com/site/sony-32-class-w830k-hd-led-google-tv/6505561.p?skuId=6505561

My plasma TV is 42'inch Panasonic X10, and 480i, 480p, 720p games looks amazing on it. I also had 42GT60 1920x1080 plasma (it's broken now unfortunately), but 480/720p games no longer looked as good because of upscaling. Even on smaller 32'inch Sony LCD 1920x1080 x360 / PS3 games arnt looking nearly as good, so I know it has everything with upscaling. That's why I hate upscaling, so when someone tells me 1440p looks bad on his 4K TV I'm sure upscaling is to blame, not 1440p resolution itself. If you have 4K TV, you really do need to run everything at 4K resolution if you want to get a sharp picture, anything lower and things will look much worse because of upscaling. Fortunately now we have reconstruction technologies like DLSS and FSR, so it's possible to get sharp picture without running games at 4K native.

 

[Rendered Tangent]

What a ridiculous assertion, OP..

 

[Satansblade]

With RTX 3080ti on 1080p you will play games on this laptop until 2035

Also you probably have 15-17" screen on that laptop so PPI is good so no worries if its "only" 1080p

Exactly.

 

[squarealex]

What im reading?

 

[grfunkulus]

My plasma TV is 42'inch Panasonic X10, and 480p / 720p games looks amazing on it. I also had 42GT60 1920x1080 plasma (it's broken now unfortunately), but xbox classic and x360 games no longer looked as good. Even on smaller 32'inch Sony LCD 1920x1080 x360 / PS3 games arnt looking nearly as good, so I know it has everything with upscaling. I hate upscaling, so when someone tells me 1440p looks bad on his 4K TV I'm sure upscaling is to blame, not 1440p resolution itself. If you have 4K TV, you really do need to run everything at 4K resolution if you want to get a sharp picture, anything lower and things will look much worse because of upscaling. Fortunately now we have reconstruction technologies like DLSS and FSR, so it's possible to get sharp picture without running games at 4K native.

Aww, such a bummer about the GT60. Those were great sets. Had a couple 50 inch Kuros, along with a 50 inch GT50 which I eventually sold to a friend when upgrading to the 60 inch VT60. Always wish I had copped a smaller 42 incher, as it would've been something superior still to what is around these days vs the larger plasmas which have been, IMO, almost entirely usurped by OLEDs. Anywho, looks like we could agree on something after all.

And yes, 4k native is a great way to go if you can push the pixels. I think my perspective is a little different than most because AAA single player games are no longer my focus, and stuff like Destiny 2 which takes up 80% of my gaming are easily run at 4k120hz near max settings on my 3080. Hence, my appetite for sub native resolutions is not questioned all that often (but yes, I am glad DLSS 2.0 exists because it's essentially free performance and only upsides in terms of IQ). Sorry if I took an unreasonably harsh, personal tact (pot calling the kettle black and all that).