安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
此主题已被锁定 
讨论规则及指引
举报此帖
The people understand.
The important is understandable.
I don't care what you want or choose to you, that's up to you. I was correcting some of your misconceptions. Resolution at one PPI is going to look just as clean, and just as sharp as a different resolution at the same PPI, and there is a limit to how large of a PPI you actually notice. If you had a 4K monitor at 24" it would look little to no different than the 1080p screen. In fact, you won't start to notice any real difference with 4K until you start getting over 32", and that's only if you're still sitting right in front of it, if you move back, things change.
What you're seeing is the HDR features. Or if you have an OLED, you're seeing display type differences. Resolution has virtually nothing to do with your impressions.
Starting at the most common displays by gamers out there today, 1080p at 60hz is the most common display. Stepping that up to 120hz is going to result in a sharper and smoother image than doubling the pixel count to 2160p. Games are not pictures, most have a significant amount of motion to them, and frame rate directly relates to how much perceived motion blur there is when cameras, or things on screen move.
Display type is more important than resolution when it comes to the quality of per-frame images. TN vs IPS vs VA vs OLEDs and more.
People who game on TN know they're sacrificing some dynamic range but they do so because the extremely high frame rates and extremely low display lag offered by them does actually give people an edge in competitive gaming.
Resolution directly correlates with frame rate. 4K120 isn't really a thing outside of marketing. Most next gen games that advertise 4K60 or higher don't actually achieve that, but say "up to" specifically because many newer games are using dynamic resolution, meaning, the resolution changes in an attempt to maintain the desired frame rate, and almost always this ends up being a 2K image, and often, games with dynamic resolution even dip down under 1080p.
When it comes to scaling, almost all images you see on your monitor, unless windowed or pillar/letterboxed get scaled (stretched) to fill the screen by your monitor. When your monitor has to scale, it takes time and introduces more display lag, which will have an effect on the responsiveness of the game you are playing. Furthermore, running a game at a resolution that does not multiply into the target monitor's native resolution by a whole integer means some pixels get doubled, others do not, this results in a noticeable loss of image quality and blur. So when you switch your 1440p monitor to 1080p, you're not getting an accurate representation of what 1080p at that screen size would look like. It WILL look like garbage. Likewise selecting 1440p in your game on a 4K monitor will also look terrible.
___
Lastly, there's a simple test people can do to determine if the pixel density of their current displays is enough. Open a photo editing program like Gimp or Photoshop, and create a canvas matching your monitors resolution, then create a checkerboard pattern where every single pixel alternates between two contrasting colors, like black and white, then view that image fullscreen and sit at normal viewing distances (do not lean in searching for a difference). If you can actually see a checkerboard of black and white pixels, your pixel density (PPI) is too low. If it appears to be a solid gray, your pixel density is good enough and adding more pixels will not make a difference.
If your Pixel Density is high enough and you want a bigger screen, go with a higher resolution at that same PPI to get you the largest image you can get without sacrificing image quality. PPI is more important than resolution, refresh rate and response times are more important for gaming than resolution. Display type (TN, IPS, VA, OLED etc) is more important than resolution.
I get good enough PQ on my monitor, plus my GPU has plenty of headroom for turning up ingame settings to Very High/Ultra, basically max out settings. Heck, I think that with the RX 7900 XTX, I'd finally be able to run Metro Exodus PC Enhanced at totally maxed out settings.
My caveat is, I'm nearing 60, so my eyesight ain't quite what they were years ago, so maybe that's why I'm quite happy with the PQ of my 49" monitor. Looking at the bright side of things, perhaps that's a positive about getting older....
that being said, i dont personally like sitting at a desk with my face plastered against the screen due to trying to see stuff on a tiny useless screen, bigger screen means i can see more stuff and easier to see that stuff as well.
As others have said it all depends on the viewing distance. Without considering that as a factor, your question is fairly meaningless.
Clarity is a bit moot given we're talking about the same number of pixels - unless you're going to buy a screen whose pixels are blurry (unlikely), or your eyes are (at the distance of the screen). Either size should be completely clear otherwise - it's just whether you can distinguish individual pixels or not (at the distance, etc, etc). If you want a "clearer" screen then get one with more pixels.
I'm about 50cm from two 24" monitors - one of them 1080p and the other 1440p (both at 100% scaling). *At that distance*, let's just say I wouldn't want the 1080p one to be any bigger, or the 1440p one to be any smaller.
Personally, I like 22 for 1080p, one just tends to be so close to the monitor that unless those pixels are tight you may resolve them otherwise.
This is one thing I don't get about 27" 1440P monitors. They're only marginally larger than a 24" 1080p and the additional pixel density isn't going to yield much additional sharpness either since a 24" 1080p is already over that threshold of what people can actually see. It makes more sense to go with a 32", which has the same pixel density as that 24" 1080P screen, only you get a larger image
Lol 4k 24 inch and 1080p 24 inch would look the same? Sure if you are legally blind lol the 4k one would be pin sharp like retina. Native 1080 on 24 inch has a lot of jaggies and fuzzyness its imposdible to see cleary in foilage in shooters unless its a high res display. What you claim about 1080 aka 90ppi being the limit is completely false. You need to get glasses...
1080p needs to be running no larger than 20” to get the same pixel density as 1440p 27”, 24” is much too large for 1080 to look nearly as good, I’ve had many 1080p monitors, my older and smaller ones looked better, and 1440p blows it all away.
Even 27" with 4K resolution won't help me seeing clear picture because UI on some game will be too smaller to seeing.
Pin sharp like retina? Lmao, now you're using Apple marketing? Have you done any testing or research of this on your own or do you just watch advertisements?
Yea its called 25yrs of gaming son. I owned more monitors than you ill wager. Saying the eye cannot see more than 90ppi is pure trolling. You must be the same guys who say 24fps is all the eye can see.
I got one thing to say on the subject, Its called aliasing and texture quality. What you say is an outright lie. I wont even reply btw as the last few posts are just outrageous. Some people whining about high ppi because the UI is too small. So go sit on 109ppi forevet then or actually play a decent coded game that has UI scaling. Yes UI scaling... mind blown?