4K Next Gen?

[Arvaos]

Will you be getting on the 4K wagon with a new next generation card or console?

[AdahnGorion]

Messaggio originale di Mr Blonde:

Messaggio originale di 🄼🅁. 🄱🄸🄻🄻:

4k in a shooter = small target
1080p in a shooter = big target

Easy choice for FPS fans

I don’t think it works like that lol

I’d prob say 4K in a shooter = clearer target lol

I would properly say that 60 hz 4k gaming in a shooter would make for a bad experience.

[Ron]

Messaggio originale di Mr Blonde:

Messaggio originale di 🄼🅁. 🄱🄸🄻🄻:

4k in a shooter = small target
1080p in a shooter = big target

Easy choice for FPS fans

I don’t think it works like that lol

I’d prob say 4K in a shooter = clearer target lol

Nope. It's an age old FPS trick. The lower the resolution, the bigger the target.

Back in the day, when XGA (1024x768) became possible, most FPS players stuck with VGA (640x480) simply for better target acquisition

[Spud the Spud]

If it was available on the market, with the upcoming generation of graphics cards I'd like to buy what some people call a 4k ultrawide (it's closer to 5k, though) that can handle 144hz. It would be super annoying to buy an expensive 4k monitor only to want to replace it 2 years later, you know? There already is a 4k ultrawide, but it's only 60hz, so I'll pass on that.

[Mr Blonde]

Messaggio originale di 🄼🅁. 🄱🄸🄻🄻:

Messaggio originale di Mr Blonde:

I don’t think it works like that lol

I’d prob say 4K in a shooter = clearer target lol

Nope. It's an age old FPS trick. The lower the resolution, the bigger the target.

Back in the day, when XGA (1024x768) became possible, most FPS players stuck with VGA (640x480) simply for better target acquisition

Ohhhhh yeah I forgot about that haha

[Χάρης]

Messaggio originale di 🄼🅁. 🄱🄸🄻🄻:

Messaggio originale di Mr Blonde:

I don’t think it works like that lol

I’d prob say 4K in a shooter = clearer target lol

Nope. It's an age old FPS trick. The lower the resolution, the bigger the target.

Back in the day, when XGA (1024x768) became possible, most FPS players stuck with VGA (640x480) simply for better target acquisition

therefore low resolutions are underrated

[Arvaos]

23” 1080p
27” 1440p
32” 2160p

The PPI of the 4K monitor is 138 inches at 4K which is the highest.

However, a 27 inch monitor at 4K will have a 157 PPI.

[Arvaos]

Although, most people will either run DLSS or checkerboard rendering on 4K games.

[Arvaos]

Messaggio originale di Darkie:

Messaggio originale di Mr Blonde:

I don’t think it works like that lol

I’d prob say 4K in a shooter = clearer target lol

I would properly say that 60 hz 4k gaming in a shooter would make for a bad experience.

Does native 1080p or 1440p at 23 or 27 inches look better than 4K with DLSS or Checkerboard rendering?

[linis]

Probably not, only time I'll likely start running anything above 1080 is when $10 - $50 monitors are 4K. I'm not keeping up with the pricing on monitors so figure there's still some time, no rush.

[AdahnGorion]

Messaggio originale di RyReps:

Messaggio originale di Darkie:

I would properly say that 60 hz 4k gaming in a shooter would make for a bad experience.

Does native 1080p or 1440p at 23 or 27 inches look better than 4K with DLSS or Checkerboard rendering?

I think native 1440p looks better than upscaled 1440p with dlss. (even 4k upscaled) But that is a matter of personal opinion. 1.0 dlss looked like a blurry mess and had poor image quality. 2.0 is better, but I still see a big difference, albeit not the blur.

Basically if we talk natives (without upscale software) then 60 hz is simply abysmal in most cases.. It will not feel fluid and it might even make it look worse in some instances.. Hz is much more important than resolution up to atleast 144hz. If the 4k is 144 hz, then no problem.. well as long as you can pull proper fps.


27" 1440p is great.. 4k.. no way, not even 32" is enough and again.. most PC gamers sit an armslenght away..... 4k makes sense on a huge TV while looking at movies etc.. might even be alright with console because it is so low grade (30/60 fps lock) so the hz does littler difference.

[Arvaos]

Messaggio originale di Darkie:

Messaggio originale di RyReps:

Does native 1080p or 1440p at 23 or 27 inches look better than 4K with DLSS or Checkerboard rendering?

I think native 1440p looks better than upscaled 1440p with dlss. (even 4k upscaled) But that is a matter of personal opinion. 1.0 dlss looked like a blurry mess and had poor image quality. 2.0 is better, but I still see a big difference, albeit not the blur.

Basically if we talk natives (without upscale software) then 60 hz is simply abysmal in most cases.. It will not feel fluid and it might even make it look worse in some instances.. Hz is much more important than resolution up to atleast 144hz. If the 4k is 144 hz, then no problem.. well as long as you can pull proper fps.


27" 1440p is great.. 4k.. no way, not even 32" is enough and again.. most PC gamers sit an armslenght away..... 4k makes sense on a huge TV while looking at movies etc.. might even be alright with console because it is so low grade (30/60 fps lock) so the hz does littler difference.

I have a 1080p 75Hz IPS, a 1440p 144Hz panel, and a 4K 60Hz VA.

For console games and third person games, 60FPS but I play some PS4 Pro games at 30FPS since they have a lot of triple A exclusives.

For first person games, any framerate over a 100.

It varies on what games you play but panel type matters more to me than response rate but I play a lot of third person cinematic type games which is the crowd that single player triple A games are marketed at.

If you play competitive games, 144Hz and above.

[(N☆G) Jackal ★JJ★]

I've been using 4K for at least 5 or or 6 years now.
I enjoy it though getting a stable 60 fps was a problem for a bit and 100+ was an issue.
But I'm excited for the 3090 since I can have a 4K monitor and a stable 100+ fps. Even bought a 4K 120/144 OC'd Hz monitor just for the 3090 coming.

Pretty excited about that.

[AdahnGorion]

Messaggio originale di RyReps:

Messaggio originale di Darkie:

I think native 1440p looks better than upscaled 1440p with dlss. (even 4k upscaled) But that is a matter of personal opinion. 1.0 dlss looked like a blurry mess and had poor image quality. 2.0 is better, but I still see a big difference, albeit not the blur.

Basically if we talk natives (without upscale software) then 60 hz is simply abysmal in most cases.. It will not feel fluid and it might even make it look worse in some instances.. Hz is much more important than resolution up to atleast 144hz. If the 4k is 144 hz, then no problem.. well as long as you can pull proper fps.


27" 1440p is great.. 4k.. no way, not even 32" is enough and again.. most PC gamers sit an armslenght away..... 4k makes sense on a huge TV while looking at movies etc.. might even be alright with console because it is so low grade (30/60 fps lock) so the hz does littler difference.

I have a 1080p 75Hz IPS, a 1440p 144Hz panel, and a 4K 60Hz VA.

For console games and third person games, 60FPS but I play some PS4 Pro games at 30FPS since they have a lot of triple A exclusives.

For first person games, any framerate over a 100.

It varies on what games you play but panel type matters more to me than response rate but I play a lot of third person cinematic type games which is the crowd that single player triple A games are marketed at.

If you play competitive games, 144Hz and above.

Hz is always more important than panel type if you ask me.. with that being said, I would be sad to not have my IPS.. mainly because it looks alot better in the colours than a TN. VA is just utterly awful in my opinion, but it is a matter of taste.

If you use the monitor for consoles, then hz does not matter much, since they are fps locked to 30/60

[Arvaos]

Messaggio originale di (N☆G) Jackal ★JJ★:

I've been using 4K for at least 5 or or 6 years now.
I enjoy it though getting a stable 60 fps was a problem for a bit and 100+ was an issue.
But I'm excited for the 3090 since I can have a 4K monitor and a stable 100+ fps. Even bought a 4K 120/144 OC'd Hz monitor just for the 3090 coming.

Pretty excited about that.

That’s awesome!

I think I’ll sell my 1440p 144Hz Dell TN panel and keep the 1080p and 4K monitor.

Some older games don’t scale well to 4K and have HUD or menu issues. Although, many PC games can be modded to upscale the HUD.

[Arvaos]

Messaggio originale di Darkie:

Messaggio originale di RyReps:

I have a 1080p 75Hz IPS, a 1440p 144Hz panel, and a 4K 60Hz VA.

For console games and third person games, 60FPS but I play some PS4 Pro games at 30FPS since they have a lot of triple A exclusives.

For first person games, any framerate over a 100.

It varies on what games you play but panel type matters more to me than response rate but I play a lot of third person cinematic type games which is the crowd that single player triple A games are marketed at.

If you play competitive games, 144Hz and above.

Hz is always more important than panel type if you ask me.. with that being said, I would be sad to not have my IPS.. mainly because it looks alot better in the colours than a TN. VA is just utterly awful in my opinion, but it is a matter of taste.

If you use the monitor for consoles, then hz does not matter much, since they are fps locked to 30/60

Why do you dislike VA? I have a QLED VA and it is the closest we can get to OLED on PC in terms of contrast ratio.