-
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.
1440p is overrated by people who can't go up to 4k
- Thread starter .Pennywise
- Start date
Kuranghi
Member
When you game on a really big TV, aren't miles away and you "don't notice a difference" between 1440p and 2160p (with reasonable exceptions ofc) then you probably need a better TV:
Give your old pal Kuranghi an @ or a PM and we'll fix that up in a jiffy, downgrade that family holiday/anniversary dinner/kids birthday party/house renovation/sex doll material quality because I have expensive tastes and I only want the best for you x
Give your old pal Kuranghi an @ or a PM and we'll fix that up in a jiffy, downgrade that family holiday/anniversary dinner/kids birthday party/house renovation/sex doll material quality because I have expensive tastes and I only want the best for you x
Better performance.
Jokes aside 8k is actually where you can't see the difference even on an 60+ inch television. At least image quality wise. Unless textures go actually that high up and then lol your vram.Nah OP it 8K
As far as 4k vs 1440p goes you can see the difference but its at the point you actually need to concentrate to do so. So, imo 1440p is perfectly fine for most.
Last edited:
Raphael
Member
1440p 60+ fps is better value for money than 4k30.
If you can get 4k60+ thats obviously better, but it comes at a terribly inflated cost per fps. If money is a non issue then good for you, the great majority of us need to balance performance and quality however and the much better performance on a not that huge quality gap is much more worth it. You can much more easily see the jump from 30 to 60fps then the picture quality form the better resolution (even if math shows it should be huge) - we seem to be in diminishing returns territory when it comes to resolution.
Similarly the more interesting question i think is if 120 fps at 1440p is worth it over 4k60. I think not for singleplayer but it might be for multiplayer. Or if 200fps+ is worth it over better resolution 120fps. Most likely it isn't for 99% of people.
Similar question can be asked about rtx - how much the reflections are worth it over resolution or performance hits.
In the end if all comes down to personal preference and rig.
This elitism here is like saying that someone who can't afford a michellin star dinner shouldn't really lie to themselves that just a tripadvisor recommeded restaurant is great over your regular meal.
If you can get 4k60+ thats obviously better, but it comes at a terribly inflated cost per fps. If money is a non issue then good for you, the great majority of us need to balance performance and quality however and the much better performance on a not that huge quality gap is much more worth it. You can much more easily see the jump from 30 to 60fps then the picture quality form the better resolution (even if math shows it should be huge) - we seem to be in diminishing returns territory when it comes to resolution.
Similarly the more interesting question i think is if 120 fps at 1440p is worth it over 4k60. I think not for singleplayer but it might be for multiplayer. Or if 200fps+ is worth it over better resolution 120fps. Most likely it isn't for 99% of people.
Similar question can be asked about rtx - how much the reflections are worth it over resolution or performance hits.
In the end if all comes down to personal preference and rig.
This elitism here is like saying that someone who can't afford a michellin star dinner shouldn't really lie to themselves that just a tripadvisor recommeded restaurant is great over your regular meal.
Last edited:
darrylgorn
Member
Still fine with 1080p 60fps.
Soodanim
Gold Member
.Pennywise
this was a great troll thread, well done. A well executed mix of pomposity and elitism with some illogical reasoning that makes for excellent bait
Last edited:
Spitfire098
Member
phant0m
Member
Couldn’t disagree more OP. I have a 65” C8 OLED and spent a LOT of time switching between resolutions. 1080p to 1440p is a noticeable difference regardless of viewing distance. 1440p to 4K is a noticeable difference when I’m standing 4’ from the screen. Fortunately, this is not my standard viewing distance — my couch is about 12’ from the screen and the difference is marginal at best. Unless you’re directly comparing, it’s very difficult to tell and not at all worth the performance hit.
Further, on consoles with fixed visual modes many reduce visual effects, object density, remove RT, etc to achieve native 4K. Don’t be a sad pixel counter.
Further, on consoles with fixed visual modes many reduce visual effects, object density, remove RT, etc to achieve native 4K. Don’t be a sad pixel counter.
Last edited:
Lysandros
Member
The rest of the world?
Jigsaah
Gold Member
I have seen deals like this. But after spending $1700 on a 4090...I think i'm just gonna let my wallet simmer down a bit.
tvdaXD
Member
Exactly, because it's not playable. 4K is overrated marketing bs to just have another new shiny badge on the box.
M1987
Member
No it doesn't
Corporal.Hicks
Member
4K displays are overated. Such insanely high resolution is not very universal, so for example 1920x1080 BD movies, or even older games (games with low quality assets and textures) will look much worse when displayed at 4K. What's more, even if you want to play 4K content on your 4K TV/monitor, you will still need to take into account the size of the display and the viewing distance, because if your eyes cant see more than lets say 1920x1080 pixels from the place where are you sitting, so why even bother with 4K display.
https://stari.co/tv-monitor-viewing-distance-calculator
According to this calculator people with perfect eyesight need to sit at a distance of 1 metre from a 55-inch 4K screen in order to really see what 4K has to offer (I'm talking about visual acuity distance). I have never seen anyone sit so close, and most people watch this kind of TV from about 2-3 metres, from which even someone with perfect eyesight cannot see more pixels than good old 1920x1080.
Although 4K displays are overated, I still try to run my games at 4K resolution if only my GPU has enough resources, because aliasing and shimmering arnt pretty, and only downscaling can make the game wi5h crappy TAA look sharp and aliasing/shimmering free at the same time. Even 1920x1080p display will show way more fine details if game will run at 4K downscaled to 1080p, than standard 1080p with TAA running on the same tv. IMO that's why people think 4K makes a difference. It's not because their display has 8M pixels, but it's because picture itself is way more detailed.
I have a total of 4 displays in my house:
-55inch 4K LCD TV for modern games with HDR
-42inch Plasma 1024x768 for PS3-PS2/xboxclassic/GC games
-32inch LCD 1920x1080 for PS4 games
-27inch LCD 2560x1440p with HDR for my PC
WIthout upscaling even my 1024x768 plasma has very sharp picture from a normal viewing distance and on this tv downscaled 1080p is already enough, to make even blurry TAA game look sharp. On my 32'inch 1920x1080 tv I need to dowscale from 4K to make TAA game look sharp. On my 1440p monitor I need 6K, and on my 4K TV i dont even bother with downscaling, because 8K is too demanding and 4K with TAA looks acceptable even without downscaling anyway and especially with good sharpening.
https://stari.co/tv-monitor-viewing-distance-calculator
According to this calculator people with perfect eyesight need to sit at a distance of 1 metre from a 55-inch 4K screen in order to really see what 4K has to offer (I'm talking about visual acuity distance). I have never seen anyone sit so close, and most people watch this kind of TV from about 2-3 metres, from which even someone with perfect eyesight cannot see more pixels than good old 1920x1080.
Although 4K displays are overated, I still try to run my games at 4K resolution if only my GPU has enough resources, because aliasing and shimmering arnt pretty, and only downscaling can make the game wi5h crappy TAA look sharp and aliasing/shimmering free at the same time. Even 1920x1080p display will show way more fine details if game will run at 4K downscaled to 1080p, than standard 1080p with TAA running on the same tv. IMO that's why people think 4K makes a difference. It's not because their display has 8M pixels, but it's because picture itself is way more detailed.
I have a total of 4 displays in my house:
-55inch 4K LCD TV for modern games with HDR
-42inch Plasma 1024x768 for PS3-PS2/xboxclassic/GC games
-32inch LCD 1920x1080 for PS4 games
-27inch LCD 2560x1440p with HDR for my PC
WIthout upscaling even my 1024x768 plasma has very sharp picture from a normal viewing distance and on this tv downscaled 1080p is already enough, to make even blurry TAA game look sharp. On my 32'inch 1920x1080 tv I need to dowscale from 4K to make TAA game look sharp. On my 1440p monitor I need 6K, and on my 4K TV i dont even bother with downscaling, because 8K is too demanding and 4K with TAA looks acceptable even without downscaling anyway and especially with good sharpening.
Last edited:
Corporal.Hicks
Member
FSR / DLSS reconstruct missing information (details) from previous frames and at this point you are getting picture quality more comparable to real 4K than 1440p.
nightmare-slain
Member
I have an RTX 4080 and 2x 4K TVs
I could play at 4K if I wanted but I choose not to. I'm happy with 1440p 144hz. I did play on a 4K monitor for a while but felt it was not worth it.
#FACTS
edit: just saw who posted this thread. Why am I not surprised it's fucking
.Pennywise
? you need to stop posting such stupid shit mate.
I could play at 4K if I wanted but I choose not to. I'm happy with 1440p 144hz. I did play on a 4K monitor for a while but felt it was not worth it.
#FACTS
edit: just saw who posted this thread. Why am I not surprised it's fucking
.Pennywise
? you need to stop posting such stupid shit mate.
Last edited:
hinch7
Member
The reason why people call it a sweet spot is because you get a good mix of fidelity and performance. Going 4K is leaving a lot of performance on the table. A bit like using raytracing with raster when playing a game verses a purely rasterized scene.
An example is like how a little and underpowered consoles GPU's are. Can only do 4K 30 in a lot of games, with 1440P, 60fps in performance modes.
Plus with how GPU prices are going and how Nvidia and AMD are shitting on customers with the latest lineup of graphics cards, 1440P makes a lot of sense in 2023.
An example is like how a little and underpowered consoles GPU's are. Can only do 4K 30 in a lot of games, with 1440P, 60fps in performance modes.
Plus with how GPU prices are going and how Nvidia and AMD are shitting on customers with the latest lineup of graphics cards, 1440P makes a lot of sense in 2023.
Last edited:
digdug2
Member
I agree. It ran awful in fidelity mode, but was buttery smooth in performance mode. Now Elden Ring, on the other hand, runs like shit even in performance mode on XSX. I have a LG C1 though, so VRR was a godsend.
rofif
Can’t Git Gud
What good is a 2k pc if you can’t run 4k ?
4k 120hz oled tv lg c2 42 or 48” is like 800$. Not 2000$….
Even on 3080 I run most stuff 4k120 if I want.
And ps5 does great on that tv too.
Art The Clown
Banned
I just want good games
Skelterz
Member
Also another thing worth mentioning is not everybody can afford a 4K tv or monitor I think it’s important to remember financially a lot of people are struggling, The price of everything has risen exponentially from food to gas etc a lot of people just can’t justify replacing a TV for a few extra pixels.
A lot of people I know who have full time
Jobs still get all there luxury’s on credit, without buy now pay later plans a lot of the stuff I have now I would have never been able to afford.
Also in the UK 4K is seldom taken advantage of by broadcasters on television it’s very limited to select channels sports/movies etc.
A lot of people I know who have full time
Jobs still get all there luxury’s on credit, without buy now pay later plans a lot of the stuff I have now I would have never been able to afford.
Also in the UK 4K is seldom taken advantage of by broadcasters on television it’s very limited to select channels sports/movies etc.
It's odd. In games like the Witcher 3 or older games I really notice the difference. While in others I just couldn't care less because devs use CBAA/VSAA to cover jagged edges anyway so all that increase in IQ gets blurred out.
DLSS/FSR are nice and all but I feel like I am lying to myself, like wearing a wig or something. Look I can play in 4k ultra performance! Mate that's not 4k. Nvidia and AMD should stop chasing the ray tracing dragon and keep improving raster performance.
1800p is the sweet spot to me.
DLSS/FSR are nice and all but I feel like I am lying to myself, like wearing a wig or something. Look I can play in 4k ultra performance! Mate that's not 4k. Nvidia and AMD should stop chasing the ray tracing dragon and keep improving raster performance.
1800p is the sweet spot to me.
Last edited:
Reizo Ryuu
Gold Member
It's not a 400% increase from 1080p, it's 300%; 1080p to UHD = 4x the pixels, a 400% increase would be 5x (since a 100% increase is 2x)
Not surprised OP is fudging the numbers.
Not surprised OP is fudging the numbers.
The_Mike
I cry about SonyGaf from my chair in Redmond, WA
I bought a dell monitor with free sync a g sync compatible for 285 usd.
I could never play without g sync again, or an ips monitor. Tvs are shit to game on i even play my one x on my monitor
Thaedolus
Gold Member
1440p is absolutely the sweet spot in terms of balancing pixel density and performance. 4K @120hz is obviously objectively better, but that’s a premium tier and thus fairly niche. Not everyone can afford a 40xx graphics card and display to make use of it, so they aim for that best bang for your buck 1440p point. Ain’t nothin wrong with that
Corporal.Hicks
Member
Some games (older games) will look even worse at 4K, because textures must be upscaled. Before playing the Dead Space remake, I had a quick play through of the original on 2 different screens. On 4K TV I thought like playing some N64 / PSX era game, because the textures looked so blurry, but on good old 1080p tv the same game looked way less dated. A lower resolution will hide imperfections.
I agree, downsampling makes a huge difference, especially now because modern games use blury TTA instead of MSAA. 1920x1080 with TAA looks more like upscaled 720p in tearms of sharpness, so even on 1920x1080 diaplay downscaled 4K game with TAA will look way more detailed.
Last edited:
People want 1440p since it still looks good and will free up a tons of system resources to make games more complex. Like more things on screen, better physics, animation, ai, etc. This current 4k/60fps revolution has most games looking like remastered ps4/xbox one games. Gimme 1440p/30fps all day if all games will start looking like the matrix demo.
KaiserBecks
Member
I prefer Ultrawide.
Soodanim
Gold Member
Priorities. Some would prefer to spend the power on 1440@120 than 2160@60, and that's best case. If you're getting drops, it's 105 vs 45fps
Dr. Acid Avatar
Member
This thread title sounds like something a young adult would say when trying to win at the internet.
NovaSe7en
Member
This is obviously bait. OP is having a go at worst-thread-of-the-year award, but I'll indulge.
Playing games at 4K/120 *is* superior but also prohibitively expensive.
A 77" LG C9, at the time I bought it, I think was over $4,000.
My computer build, after dropping a 4090 in it, probably another $4,000.
Not flexing, just saying that very few are going to pay that. 1440p is not overrated, it's just the most sensible choice right now.
Playing games at 4K/120 *is* superior but also prohibitively expensive.
A 77" LG C9, at the time I bought it, I think was over $4,000.
My computer build, after dropping a 4090 in it, probably another $4,000.
Not flexing, just saying that very few are going to pay that. 1440p is not overrated, it's just the most sensible choice right now.
DaGwaphics
Member
People happy with 4k just can't afford to do 8k. Look at the resolution increase.
Last edited:
Guwop
Neo Member
$700? There are 4k monitors for around $300
