I have the LG C1 paired with a 3090 … can’t hit 120fps on most games without DLSS or FSR, but the image is so smooth due to G-Sync and VRR. And the HDR is amazing in game. I don’t regret it one bit
i sold my 2080ti and went console only for a while, but couldnt stay away. i bought a 6800xt and couldnt get it to play nice with my LG b9 2020 tv. where as my old Nvidia card worked perfectly with it.
I’ve seen lots of videos of people using 21:9 resolutions on the C1. Since the blacks are real black, the black bars don’t stand out. I’ve been trying to do this but can’t work out how to do it properly without the display or the GPU trying to stretch it. Not sure of the right process for creating the custom resolutions and retaining full HDR10 support, if that’s possible
Yeah, I have a 3080ti, actually two. They can’t push my C1 to 120 but I’m pretty solid around 70-80 fps. That’s where the benefits of G-Sync come in. When the frame rate drops drastically you don’t notice really.
There's always a link in my description and it's currently on sale ;) but seriously make good financial decisions and only purchase I'd you can afford it lol
@@danielowentech I think that it is too much money for the return. Also the 6800XT isn't nearly as great at ray-tracing as what Nvidia has to offer. I'm using a 1440p/144hz G-Sync monitor with an RTX 2080 Super and it works great for RT, when using DLSS.
Even without FSR or DLSS I think it's still viable to play 1440p on a 4K as many games these days have a render scale setting. You set your resolution to 4K and setting scale to 60-70%. Which yes... you can't get 1440p exactly on a 4K screen with a % slider but you can get close. So that way you can still have a nice 4K UI and HUD but ease up in the rendering requirements.
Sorry but having 2 4k monitors and a RTX 3080 (previously a 1080), I completely disagree, its the same thing as getting a 144hz monitor and never wanting to go back. In competitive games I find myself noticing enemies from across the map that don't even register on 1080p. And at least for me, a regular dude who's never going pro, 60hz is plenty for my reflexes and flicks, and a higher refresh rate really won't fix my aim haha. And running 1440p on a 4k monitor looks worse than 1080p for some reason, unless you have a specific thing like DLSS. Just my experience. Once a cheaper 4k 144hz comes out, I'll definitely jump on it. But for $300, I'd always go 4k 60hz over any 1440p monitor.
@@00000005547 same, i have a 5k 120hz VR headset right now and its simply stunning and its simply so stunning that 1080p is just dead and old to me, i also pre ordered another VR headset that has according to reviewers and the people from varjo themselfes human eye resolution with a PPD of 70 while the avarage human eye has 65 so when i try that kind of crazy resolution i will probably never go back to something under 4K lol
If you have the horsepower to run the game the way you like at 4K, then if course by all means do it. But just don't write off going sub 4K on a 4K display if you need the performance. It's not terrible these days between upscaling tech and internal res scalers.
@@00000005547 it's the math of how you divide the pixels. 1080p goes evenly into 4k. 1440p does not. Letting the display decide how the pixels are split (setting the actual screen resolution to 1440p) is different from letting the game engine decide (setting to 4k but using a lower render resolution). Because the game can still anti alias to a 4k grid instead of the 1440p grid.
It's what YOU'RE comfortable playing at. It doesn't matter what Joe Blow is doing because you should be gaming for you, not to impress everyone with your specs.
Essentially, what this video is saying is if someone offers you luxury box seats to a sports event, be warned that once you are acclimated to the luxury, you will never want to go back to public stadium seating.
Old video but I can relate to going big all at once, and holding out for massive future improvement. I just upgraded from my 980Ti 1440p setup from about 10 years ago, to 4090 FE and C3 OLED. Really knocks my socks off just how much of an improvement it is. And I will keep this setup for probably another 10 years before I upgrade, but I'll be 50 by then (eek). For me it was more about maxing out 1440p at the time of purchase, and waiting until 4k ultra settings at above 100fps became possible before upgrading.
Used the same strategy! went from a GTX 970 to a 4090 recently, wont be tempted to upgrade anytime soon. ..unless for some reason the almost meme number generation is gonna be a banger (6090, unlikely though.)
I have 38 curved dell monitor, and LG C2 by side.First I thought I will use C2 only for gaming and movies, but more and more I use it daily. I think only on tv can one appreciate 4k, 38 ultrawide has way less area, it's incomparable. I don't think it will last for 10 years in terms of technology, it will definitely outdate in 5 years
Sounds like me, 1080 Ti and a high-end 1440p monitor for the past 6 years. (and it still slays in 1440p). Now have a 4090, and shopping for the right 4k monitor (harder to find).
I have a 4090 and a 1440p monitor. People say that's overkill. People who say that are essentially saying that too many fps is not good and having less fps is what I should want. I don't like those people. They are bad people and should be punished.
I had a 60hz 4k monitor I tried for a while, went to a 1440p 165hz and had to go back. The image quality downgrade was noticeable and I had a nice enough card (6900 XT) to play at 4K at well above 60 fps in most games even at ultra settings. So I picked up an IPS 4k 120hz and have been very happy since then. And now that FSR is getting popular, there's no reason to go back.
Yeah this is the first time I disagree with dr. Owen here. Basically I just wanted to game at 4k. That was all I wanted for the 30/600 series. That was also my main goal for this year, all I wanted was just an affordable entry to 4k gaming, and, but well here we are lol so much for 40 series looking remotely attractive. 1440p looks MUCH better than 1080p. Can't say for certain 4k, but heard it's not as big an uplift 1440 to 4k as 1080 to 1440, but yeah, I refuse to use FSR or DLSS. If I have to use an upscaler is saying "this hardware can't do that." Upscaling has been a thing for decades; it wasn't a standard before for a reason. So. To me is about running native. I don't see the point to upscale for literally the same exact reason I see zero reason for using RT+DLSS because why would I pay out the ass to slash my framerate for pretty lights, only to blur/smudge/artifact/ghost the entire rendered scene only to get some not all fps back? So now it looks worse and gets lower fps, great much wow. So to me, it's literally the same type of thing, why would I pay so much for 4k, just to completely ruin the experience with upscaling??? High fidelity is the whole point. And yes I am willing to pay for this kind of experience, it's just this year was supposed to see the $400-450 7700XT match 6800XT so you can game at 4k with a midrange card. If I can't game at 4k I have literally no reason to upgrade GPU right now otherwise.
6900 XT… 4k 60fps ultra? I doubt it man my 4070ti OC struggles most games.. high settings yes, DLSS 3.0 getting much better like cyberpunk runs well at high. What other specs you running?
@richie231186 At the time, I was running an X570 am4 board / 5950 / 32 gigs with 6900 XT reference water cooled with a decent OC. On bf 2042. I would get easily over 60 fps in ultra mode (no RT).
@@drek9k2 seems like you don’t have experience with modern upscalers, it’s absolutely as good as native and in some areas better. Most issues with DLSS can be fixed with a simple dll swap.
Completely agreed, I had a 4K120 monitor on loan from work to replace my 1440p144Hz (both 27"). Returned it recently and I'm immediately disappointed to be back at 1440p, even for 1440p content.
@@Alex-bl8uhresolution means nothing without the high native framerates to back it up. Framerate response and smoothness are much more important than extra fancy graphics and gimmick tech demos effects that can't even be run at high framerates natively on a $2000+ highest end GPU lol.
Game engine render scaling also produces a much better image on 4K. Like Cyberpunk 2077 at 50% render on 4K looks dramatically better than 1080p does, only slightly worse than native 4K, but gets about the same framerate 1080p does.
You're better off using a higher resolution with a lower DLSS setting too if you can, than just playing at the lower resolution. The extra clarity actually can help a lot in some games.
@@mydroidx1013 50% scaled at 4K is 1080p. The scaling factor is applied to both dimensions of the resolution, since 4K is 3840x2160 that gets you 1920x1080. That's even on nvidia's DLSS chart showing the effective render scale at 50%.
Resolution is relative to size and distance. You can't make resolution recommendations without taking screen size and seating distance into account. While it's fair to assume PC gamers are primarily seated at a desk we can take seating distance foe granted. So if you are gaming on a display larger than 34", 4k is easily recommendable, while 1440p works at 34" and below.
I agree with you on the subject of upscaling tech has gotten a lot better to a point where integer upscaling is no longer needed to maintain a good looking image, however a 240hz 2k monitor is still a lot cheaper than a 240hz 4k monitor. In fact you can buy a 240hz 2k to play games on, + a 60hz 4k display to watch movies and stuff and still have some money left.
I think the built in upscaler on the LG CX I have, and almost no doubt a C1 by extension, already does a great job. Even playing my switch or games at 1080p on the CX looks better than my 1080p ips monitor, and not just because of the better colors and motion clarity. I think the ups along process essentially gives you free AA, getting rid of jaggies while still preserving detail, as least that’s how it looks to me. I love my CX even if I can’t run native 4k in most games, but I agree in it making me want to upgrade sooner than I normally would!
There is actually one more thing that is worth noticing - content consuming quality. I'm not talking about UA-cam which is 99,99% of the times 60fps 1080p, but something like huge huge movies with outstanding visuals in 4k - definitely worth it in my eyes. I've watched the avengers at 42' oled 4k display - there is no coming back from that.
Tbh pcs are one of the cheapest hobbies like your say. Even racing a basic car for a year is going to set you back $5000-10,000 a year in maintaining, fueling and entering. Plus all the equipment and tools you need. Although it has got more expensive in the past year or two, it has been moving at a decent pace unlike the dark ages where we go 20 gens of 4c8t bintel while AMD was pushing out pileofpoodriver.
This is what I have to remind myself when I feel bad about spending a few hundred upgrading my rig, hell sone golf clubs cost more than my whole PC, and we won’t even get into vehicle modding!
For me, I look at 4K as unnecessary for gaming. I played at 1080p for a long time, and just bought bigger displays as the years went by. I only recently decided to dabble into a higher resolution after I got my 6800 XT. My 32" 1080p 60hz monitor was not enough for my upgraded HEDT PC so I went up to 1440p 165hz display, and I'm satisfied with my choice. I'm not going to ever go 4K PC display. But I probably will get a 4K front projector HDTV, someday.
Hey fellow projector 📽 enthusiast I game 1080p 165hz for fps shooters and 1080p 120 hz hdr projector dsr 4K looks incredible. Will upgrade to 4K 120hz projector when cards can actually run that in a couple of years
@@paul2609 even in a game like valhiem which has really low resolution everything I can tell the difference between 1080, 1440, and 4k and that's only on a 27in monitor.
@@No-One.321You can't even comfortably read text on a tiny little 27" 4k monitor let alone see all the rest of the details you are missing out on such a small screen with big resolution.
I still agree to that. 2016 people were saying WOW we have a true 4k card with the 1080 ti...it could run games and it was nothing but decent. 2018 people were saying 1080 ti was ok but not a real 4k card. The 2080 ti...yep was good could handle some games but still not there. 2020 we have the almighty 3080 people are saying 2080 ti was a scam and not a 4k card. Now the 3080 is a decent piece of hardware but still struggle in A LOT of titles. We are still not 4k ready in my opinion. From now id say 3~ years and we are there. I wouldnt buy a 4k monitor but everyone can decide and choose, thats the good thing.
But I guess my point in this video is that now the 3080 can play upscaled 1440p on a 4k screen using dlss that doesn't look as good as native 4k but does look better than native 1440p whereas in 2016 the 1080ti couldn't do that.
The 1080 ti WAS a 4k card in 2016. Games were easier to run and 4k also meant 4k/60 so yeah. 1080 ti was certainly a 4k capable card back then. Then the 2080 ti had to contend with 120hz monitors and fell short especially with the 2018 games getting demanding.
@@danielowentech Oh yeah sure i got the point of the vid. Ima just no fan of upscaling technology. I personally have a true 1440p running full details at 60 or more FPS rather than 4k and having to change to medium details. Might be possible that 4k gives u a sharper look but changing details, specially on shadows and textures makes to game look worse again, so there is no point of changing resolution to 4k if u have to lower everything else to get a 60 FPS. @ 1440p iam basically always safe to hit 60 FPS + max details even on the most demanding games.
@@christophermullins7163 Even before that, the entire marketing around the Fury was it was a 4K card, which launched 2 weeks apart from the 980ti. Altho back then of course 60Hz was your limit at that resolution. Games getting more demanding over time is a thing that has always happened. What doesnt happen as often is moving up the refresh rates. So in 2018 when we got both higher resolution and higher refresh rates, suddenly people did start saying that 4K wasnt possible somehow because it cant (or in reality - just harder*) to hit those frame rates, they seem to just ignore there are quite a few numbers between 60 and 144. I dont personally consider something a fail because it cant lock on to the highest FPS. I have my own preference of what is acceptable and while I enjoy higher refresh rates, I am good at anything over 60 - its a bonus. And you absolutely can game at 4K at over 60 in the vast majority of things. Thats the other wonderful argument they roll out - X game cant run at X frame rate therefore the entire thing is a fail..... (?!) So **** the other 14K games out there then??
I particularly like the scaling function when it is available, on my 1440p monitor I usually do anywhere from 1.2-1.4x, 4K is doable but the monitor technology isn't there yet (in terms of quality, 32" sizes etc.), it will be coming soon though, maybe within the next year.
Honestly, I don't care about resolutions. I just don't want to see individual pixels when staring at my monitor. And 4K gives me the best chance at that
Seriously, some of my best gaming experiences were over 20 years ago when I played at 800 x 600. 1440p only looks bad if you become used to 4k, otherwise you can live without it. Funnily enough, I used to enjoy watching movies before 4k and HD as well. Remember, 4k might seem cool today but it's tomorrow's crap.
@@portman8909yeah exactly. This giy doesn't know what he talking about stay a little bit close to 4k 65" and you will start to count pixels. 1k, 2k or 4k are just marketing numbers ppi is the true metric for monitors since you will be closer to your monitor most of the time.
4k gaming is for dudes who were facebook “bacon” guys. They went from cat memes to barely grasping the most basic concepts when it comes to gaming peripherals
I have a Samsung Odyssey Neo G7 43" 4K 144Hz HDR600 Monitor. Depending on the game I use it in either 4k or 1440. At 1440 typically 32" is the most I would say the resolution looks good on without looking all pixelated. BUT, with a 4K screen @1440, you get all of the pixel density of 4k but the 1440 image doesn't look pixelated or stretched. Its a Monitor that can last me a very long time and across multiple GPU upgrades. Oh, and to those that are thinking that I overpaid for that monitor, I got it 50% off during the Amazon Prime Day sale for only $500.
1440p ftw. I had a 22" 1080p monitor and switched to a 27" 1440p one and the difference is huge. But honestly, I don't see a a reason to have a 4k panel. The trade for performance doesn't look great, specially for a 3070, which is my card. Maybe in the future. But not today. I know DLSS makes performance better as you said. But I rather use DLSS at 1440p. Better lifetime for my GPU, I guess
I do it the other way around, I bought a 31,5'' WQHD monitor and WQHD looks good.... but gaming in 4K using DL-DSR looks even better and with DLSS on top, you don't have such a huge performance hit. But my RTX 4070 died yesterday and now my consideration is to buy a RX 7800 XT. Unfortunately, AMD cards don't have Deep Learning, which means I would have to use tradiotional super samling in the form of Virtual Super Resolution to render the games in 4K. The question is whether the raw power of the 7800 XT can compensate for the lack of AI.
this is more true even now... in my opinion 4k is a new standard for high fidelity gaming... the games benefit big time from 4k render resolution... especially if TAA and FSR or DLSS is involved... these games just need the base resolution to put out a clear image... playing modern games at FHD resolution just looks way to blurry and fuzzy... this is because of the anti aliasing technigue... older games with msaa look good at FHD... BUT: if you got 4k rendering going on, the games profit alot from taa and stuff because it has the ability to smooth out lines really nice... altough there are things i dont like about taa like the blurr, or artefacts... its crazy that so many games have weird artefacts going on... seeing the 6950xt getting sold for around 600 euros, and below, really is something... and the ability to set the resolution to 8k in not so demanding titles like most of the halo titles is crazy ... bye bye fizzy lines... halo reach for example, it looks so good at 8k... gives older games new life...
Now that there is 32" 144Hz UHD monitors for under $1000, it is beginning to be interesting to play at this definition. So if I had to buy a monitor today, I would probably choose an UHD one
If this was 5+ years ago, I would have wanted 4k, but I've noticed that with a lot of newer games, they are delivering a cleaner image at 1080p, not as good as 4k, but compared to what games used to look like at 1080p, today's 1080p looks a lot cleaner, so much so that I don't really care about 4k, but will jump on the 1440p bandwagon on my next upgrade. But don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed to higher resolutions, but you can do higher end gaming quite cheap at lower resolutions and honestly, I feel it's crazy to spend so much more for a few extra pixels and sharpness to the image, you end up getting the vast bulk of the quality, whiles paying a fraction of the price, 4k ultra settings is quite expensive whereas at lower resolutions, it can be done quite cheap and with things like image sharpening on, you get quite a clean image, especially when viewing on a tv.
The new AntiAliasing techniques largely negates the allure of the old school method of throwing more resolution at the problem to resolve the jagged edges. It's only jaded Techtubers with an angle to work and their army of noob minions that are pushing ultra high artificial price inflation, fakeframes, RT and ultra stupid resolutions on a tiny monitor to small to view all the pixels properly.
OLED as a monitor isn't an option for me anyway., Not because of burn in concerns because could use it as a gaming only secondary display but they're too damn big. Ideally I'd love a 32" one but maybe I'd settle for 40. Still the way I look at it is that FSR and DLSS are not universally applied because they aren't in every game so I wouldn't buy say a 1440p card and build a 4K oriented build that relies on upscaling or reconstruction to fill my display natively. It all comes to personal preference in the end though and I'd rather use a 4K card on a 1440p high fps build. Things are changing but I still believe native resolution is king, it's the way the game was designed to be played, it's not blurred or details added or removed or sharpened etc.
I have 32" 4k Samsung monitor and mine friend calibrated it 😋 . Colours after calibration are sweet like 10x more colourfull now + improved shadow details 🙂😃😁 Monitors are as well great, just best after calibration with profi equipment & real measurements.😉🙂
the main problem with 4k monitors for competitor players is the size of the screen. with 1080p 24 Inch u can notice whats happening faster and u wont need to look around
With a bigger frame 1440p/4k 32" you see more and pan the camera less. 24" 1080p is a very very narrow view and requires allot more panning of the camera because you see allot less information in each frame.
A huge factor is screen size to viewing distance. If you sit too far to see the detail difference between 4k and 1080p then there is no reason to run a 4k resolution. For example if you sit 8ft away from a 42" 4k screen you likely couldn't tell the difference when in game. Now a 100" 4k at the same distance you can spot the sharpness increase on 4k. I sit about 10ft away from 65" and it's borderline, I am tempting to go up to 75" for my viewing distance.
Got an LG C1 after seeing your video. Got a nice monitor arm and have been enjoying gaming on all my consoles and PC on this TV. 4K is pretty awesome too my RTX 3090 is finally getting a workout now. Came from a 34in 3440x1440 ultrawide.
I went from a 600p viewsonic back in the day playing Runescape, to a 1080p LED with horrible view angles, to a 1440p mac monitor with good color accuracy, to an ASUS 4K 144Hz 27inch with G-Sync, I really will never ever ever ever ever look back. I agree 100% with how much the DLSS and FSR upscalers are compared to not having the technology and relying on perfect pixel scaling. I love having high frame-rates in both single player and multiplayer games, north of 90 minimum which I why I went with a 4K 144Hz. Sure it's not ultra settings, it's optimized settings, which provide a crystal clear beautiful fluid experience with densely packed pixels makes all the difference
I have a 4k120 TV for simracing on a mid range pc (3060ti FE incoming!!!-lucky) . Games with TAA resolution scalers are actually very good. But yeah can confirm 1440p looks blurry close up, but actually when using casually, a good 3-4m far away, it's really hard to tell.
I see a lot of people saying they can’t tell the difference between 4K and 1440p and that’s probably true on a 27-32” LCD monitor but the jump in image quality from 1440p LCD to 4K OLED is Huge! 1440p looks pretty blurry by comparison
Yep. I HAVE to game in 4K because I have a 65 inch tv and anything less looks blurry. I have a 5600x and 6800xt. I just usually run low settings in games to get the highest frames possible because it still looks great at low settings. I avg over 150fps on most games like destiny 2 and battlefield so 4K low seems to be my sweet spot.
@@thatsamazin- Well, I'm running a 3080 with an 10850k on a 48 LG 120 hertz and yes 1440 looks blurry and almost like 1080p. So I rather lower the setting at high or medium and enjoy the crisp details of 4k.. By the way, where and how did you get the 6800xt?
I use a 27" 170hz 1440p IPS display with a 5900X and RX 6800 XT. It's perfect. I tried to aim for a 4K card but use it in a 1440p setup and have plenty of hardware fuel for a high fps playstyle with maxed out settings natively first. I don't think I'm ready for a 4K display but if I do it won't be bigger than 40". Anything above that on my desk just feels too big. I don't want to have to turn my head to look at mini maps etc. It just doesn't appeal to me personally.
Everyone, who already owns some high repetition rate display (in my case it was a tablet) should try before buying. Side by side several rates with and without motion blurr are very helpful. For me with motion blurr, 60Hz is absolutely enough! Above that even with very small very fast objects, it does not look smoother. So please, never disable motion blurr in your games, and you might not need 120Hz. By the way 120Hz is stressful for GPU and monitor. If you look for lower latency, the repetition rate is typically such a small part of it, it makes sense to optimize graphics settings and input devices first. In a video, where you watch the whole screen, 1080p is a great resolution. The wish for higher resolution comes only, when you start to look at smaller parts of the display. This however happens quite often in some kind of video games. For racing or roleplay maybe not, but strategy and shooters it is very common. And there a 4k can start making sense.
I can barely get a consistent 144hz @ 1440p out of a stupid expensive 6900XT so i have zero interest in 4k. Sure i'd love 16k for the pixel size and the weird pixel effect some games have (which isn't even gone on my 14 inch 4k laptop). If you scale that up to a 28 inch screen even 8k won't remove that so 16k just might but there is just no way to drive that much pixels. And if we even get there in a decade from now that doesn't even take into account the fact games get better and better looking = less fps (slowly but it's happening). I think 1080p/1440p with amazing graphics beats 4k/8k/16k gaming on low anytime despite the pixel effects that can be irritating. Also it's great yet worrying that despite implementation ease DLSS seems to get more implementation. And applications like magpie don't seem to be it for me. They force you to run in a window which costs performance and latency to begin with. And yeah i play every game max settings for regular play. Only battlefield 5 i turn down as low as possible (except for the textures). Every fps matters but sadly BF5 is CPU capped hard.
The thing is, upscaling is good enough now that I don't care and rather have a 4K screen and get the benefits in media consumption compared to a 1440p screen.
I just got a 28" 4K 144Hz monitor with G-Sync for $450. Such an awesome deal. Upgraded from a 32" 1440p monitor. The pixel density is much much higher. Driving it with an RTX 3080 laptop
I totally agree with you about maxing out settings and spoiling myself with the lg c1. I wish I had a stronger gpu but my Xfx Rx 6800 does a pretty good job at high settings in most hard to run titles but easy older titles run flawlessly.
@Lurch that's pretty good scores but those are just benchmark scores and don't represent what you would get during actual gameplay with any game. Ive had Xfx cards in the past too never had them fail in anyway. I usually undervolt my cards and keep the fan speeds down typically stay around 900rpm and my temps stay super low with the Xfx rx 6800. I enjoy it and I got it for a steal right during the crypto boom so I'm happy with it and most of my games I play run over 60fps on my c1 at 4k. I mostly play the Assassin's Creed franchise and other aaa single player games. Otherwise I play on my Dell S27dgf 1440p 165hz monitor.
Playing RDR2 and Ghost of Tsushima at 4k in HDR is SO SICK, and I can't believe how much more defined the clarity is. It's a whole new level. It's kind of like going from 60 to 144 fps (for AAA games. I don't play E-sports) where 60 fps is still totally okay, but the responsiveness and smoothness is surely missed if you can't hang with current hardware.
I went 4k when I bought my 1080ti and haven't looked back. I'm now using a 3090 ftw3 and decided to stick to 60hz instead of 120hz simply because even with dlss you can't always play at max details and for me a steady 60 is butter smooth even with shooters.
I used to think 60fps locked Vsync was great until I tried a 165hz panel with Adaptive Sync. No screen tearing no Vsync needed. Adaptive Sync and HDR are the best new tech that actually makes games better without tanking performance but making it much much better at the same time.
@@leanlifter1 Heh, yeah I recently bought a hisense u8k 55" 144hz vrr set and its been great. It has wide range vrr that goes from 48~144hz so the image is smooth no matter the fps. You do start to notice a bit of frame drops if you go much under 60fps but with competitive settings I'm hitting the upper limits anyways. This new crop of high end tv are very nice for gaming and not all that more expensive than a comparable dedicated pc display.
@@nonaurbizniz7440 Never tried VRR I just have a Samsung G5 1440p 32" it has Adaptive Sync Free Sync premium and G sync branded. Monitors are actually decent now in days. 10+ years ago you really could not find a decent quality monitor even for $500+ from a top brand they were all absolutely terrible but at leased their were high quality Sony 1080p TVs to use as a stop gap until something great came along a decade+ later lol.
Even top GPU's are not powerful enough to run max settings of most AAA titles at high framerates. 1440p is the way to go unless you are upgrading your GPU again soon.
Daniel - can you maybe do a video on the differences between 1080 upscaled to 4K and 1440 upscaled to 4K? (with fsr/dlss) Would love to see how much of a difference there is (or isnt) between both scenarios. Not just because of the pixel mapping math favouring 1080 to 4K - but also the fact that 1080 is going to give a lot of us a whole lot more FPS with all other settings at max/ultra ..
It depends on what you play. If he plays more story games, then 60Hz is enough, where he will enjoy a sharper image and ultra details. For multiplayer 1440P.
There are so many technologies that can do this: FSR, DLSS, TAAU, FidelityFX Resolution Scaling, and the myriad of built in "home grown" upscalers out there. Not to mention that nearly all modern monitors and TVs have some kind of enhancement over "just stretch it and do colour average for each pixel in the native matrix". For most people the days are long gone where dropping resolution was an automatic application of The Horrendous Vaseline Filter(TM). Obviously the ones that are built in to the games work the best. Second choice is driver provided solution (for those who can actually figure out how to make a per-game profile), and lastly, if you're SOL, let the monitor/TV do the trick.
I LOVE gaming in 4k ULTRA.. my target was keeping ultra settings at 60 fps with my 2080 Ti and I can run 99% games in that setting. Moving from a 34" ultrawide to my LG 43" IPS monitor is the best thing ever! always wanted a big screen experience monitor, not a tv. And I love it! The colors, the sharpness.- is amazing... I will NEVER go back from 4K gaming. I can agree that a 27" 4K is ridiculous stupid. But 4K 43" IPS = YES BABY!
Yup 4K @ 27" you can't even see or read icons on the desktop without scaling then up to where they look to big for the small screen lol. I guess the PC gamers that game on such tiny monitors have their eyes three inches from the screen at all times lol. I agree go bigger on the monitor/TV so you can actually see everything.
@@leanlifter1haha I could imagine! I have since changed my screen for a LG 42" OLED and even on that I run 125% Windows scale! :) So I cant imagine a 27"! :) But over time I have found this to be a very good sweet spot. 42". Big to have the "big screen expereience" and still "small" enough to have in front as desktop solution. I love my C2 LG.
I have two 34 inch ultra wides. One Is 120hz and the other is 144hz. Both are IPS and G-Sync. The look great no doubt. However, my 65 inch C1 blows them away. Such a better gaming experience.
a sample: if u have a monitor where u cant never ever do an overclock for it!? then just use the cvt-rb1/2 on a gpu driver and make sure ur mhz goes lower. it will speed up ur gtg response time. and for this reason u can boost some different settings on ur monitor until it doesnt goes higher then the mhz it can accept; where then the mhz will goes with it higher; maybe the speed of the monitor or maybe the sync time of the pixels. a sample: take a 2k 60hz monitor use cvt-rb, it goes autom from 450xxxmhz to 350xxxmhz. the only think what u have to do are change every number after 35 to number 9: (359999). and it goes from himself to 90hz 12bit color and it still are on 2k monitoring. u can do the same on a 4k monitor.
720p and 1080p also integer scale to 4k. so if framerates is really what you need, it's not like you would even need an fsr scaler to keep it looking good.
I cannot tell the difference btw a 32" 1440p and 2160p running same game same setting. I have to be like less than 10 inches from the screen to tell the pixel.
Yep, that's the main issue. The difference is so subtle outside of text rendering you have to actively look for it to notice but fps drops by 50%. I tried going from a high end 32" 1440p VA to a 32" 4k IPS and returned it immediately due to the poor contrast, backlight bleed, dead pixels and barely any difference in games or movies.
I'm looking at buying the Sony Bravia XR A90k 42" tv as a monitor in my semi truck. I'll be building out a new MATX desktop system later this year to replace my laptop. Just waiting on Intel 15th gen and the RTX 5000 series.(Either the 5080 or 5090) Personally I mostly play Indie games, though I do dabble in some triple A titles, ones that can be modded usually. I've mostly given up on competitive oriented games anymore, I just play whatever's fun to me. I even built a home dedicated server for hosting some games for the discord I'm on. Anymore and I certainly prefer crisp images over frames. I play a lot of survival builder games, RPGs, RTS, TBS, Racing, and a few other oddball games out there. I think with current hardware and next gen hardware coming, 4k 120/144hz should be pretty easy to obtain.
With the upscaling technologies we have today, 1440p on a 4K monitor is better, but one thing to keep in mind is that 4K monitors are more expensive, as well as the fact that you still need a stronger GPU to drive a 4K monitor, seeing as turning settings down to medium or low would be a waste. So in the end, it all comes down to budget. 1440p is the sweet spot at the moment, seeing as you need at least a 3080 to truly enjoy 4K, and that's not exactly the tier of cards the vast majority of gamers have. With AMD going strong in the GPU market, though, this could easily change in a generation or two, thanks to competition.
@@dauntae24Those people think that PC gaming means turning the settings to pre configured Ultra and if the GPU does not run it @ 4k and 500+fps is garbage. Typically this is because they don't have a clue on how to dial in the settings and turn them down lol for their hardware. The 4070ti can natively run 99% of all games @ 4k high not ultra settings especially when you turn off the rt gimmicks in the two games that support them lol.
From a productivity standpoint 4k is faaaar superior to 1080p. A large 4k or 3.5k ultrawide is much easier to work with running mutliple windows and doing stuff side by side. Also great for gaming if you have the GPU for it. 1080p is only for esports these days.
I mean 4k 120fps mostly on cod Cold War says otherwise with medium rt it looks amazing with a 4070 ti using dlss quality preset I’d argue going directly from 1440p to 4k I chalk and cheese the image quality at 4k 32 inch is amazing not so to say 1440p is bad it’s good and performance is always really good but until you experience in person it’s hard to describe just how good 4k really looks.
I play on a 3840 x 1600 38" monitor. Games, particularly the FOV, look absolutely amazing at that type of resolution if the game supports it of course.
Well it will still look great but you aren't seeing the most out of what 4k has to offer until about 50"+ big screen TVs are what it is for to maintain clarity and sharpness like 1440p @ 32".
I got the GIGABYTE M32U at the end of last year. It does 4k at 144Hz and I got it for around $500. With my 6800 XT, I get 90+ frames at high to max settings in most games I've tried without FSR.
To me it is more about how 4K vs 1440P looks on a 32" monitor and how far I can sit from it (working/playing at my desk). With 4K I would have to lean forward to read the text. 1440P is my sweet spot. With 4K movies/shows, there is a certain "plastic/too perfect" look that bugs me. Maybe I'll get used to that.
I got a RTX 3070 and a 4K 60Hz 43-inch TV, and there are many old or easy-to-run games that run fine on ultra 4K 60fps. If you try 4K and 1440p, you know 4K is much better and not a waste. What i want now is a +120hz 4k 50 inch gaming TV, there are some selling for a good price.
Keep in mind though that every panel has pros and cons and u better be specific about your needs before buying, like: do u have a bright room or lots of lightsources hitting ur screen? Is it for gaming only or for movies or work too? Do u occasionally watch from an angled position? are u more into darker colored games/ movies/whatever? Even oled isnt the best for everything and there are issues with burned in pixels on oled screens if the displayed image doesnt change for a long time, like ur non moving desktop for example (but I heard oleds got better with that). And I wont even start on the hertz sub topic. I think Daniel might be right and 4k screens got a lot cheaper too since the vids upload. But especiallyu now u have to do your research, not only about your specific needs and circumstances, but probably about old 4k oled screens being sold for a little less money, but still having probably big risks to it. Im still amazed by my 1440p 144hz IPS screen for its beautiful colors, surprisingly high brightness but really dark hues. And I can watch movies/UA-cam from an angle and still perfectly see everything. There are pros and cons for every panel, so be really sure about what fits your needs.
@8:10 i think exactly the same as you. When i spend a couple g's on a gaming rig, i think to myself there are a lot more expensive hobbies out there, like car enthusiasts and car modders.
To be honest, i can hardly tell the difference between 1440p and 4k. Hell, I can hardly tell the difference between 1080p and 4k when sitting at my couch looking at a tv from a fair distance away. I think 4k has had way too much emphasis on it. It just doesn't offer the kind of benefits for the performance hit and hardware cost that is required, especially in gaming where motion completely destroys the sense of pixels anyway.
Play 4k on a 1440p Monitor 💪💪Its wayyy cheaper and looks same to go with 1440p and use DSR at 1,5-2x 💫. 4k gpu and screen is exponential more expensive.💷💷 DSR can render the game with up to 4x the 1440p res and downscale it to 1440p. It looks super crisp on 1440p screen, BETTER than 4k without AA. More like 1440p with 32xAA
4K is only a problem for PC users as most run on very old/weak hardware. Buy a $400 digital PS5 and all games are dynamic 4k/60fps minimum....and you can use a 75" HDR/Wide Gamut TV with decent 2020 color coverage. Don't bother with OLED. Buy a high end LCD. Get a newer HDMI 2.1 with 120fps (55/65) if you want to for still less money than a PC w/monitor and card needed for 4k.
IMO 1080p ruined the market. 10 years ago I bought 16:10 with res 1920x1200 and now considering an upgrade and 1440p is such a small upgrade compared to 4k options. Fortunately I am a very casual gamer so I think I'll be just fine with 4k 60Hz monitor.
totally agree, DLSS/FSR really changes the calculus for 4k gaming. 1440p is still a perfectly valid choice, but 4k isn't as hard to drive as it used to be
I'm running triple 1440p native screens right now, however, I'm running all screens with DSR DL 4K enabled within Windows across all screens. Honestly, it looks freaking great to me and all my games look fantastic on my 4070 Ti SUPER, especially triple screen gaming with the DSR enabled. My thinking is that if I encounter games that don't play well at higher resolutions and/or when this card has aged, I can just set the resolution back down to native 1440p and probably gain quite a bit of performance. To me, this just makes sense and tbh I cannot tell the difference between this and true 4K. Perhaps if I had them side-by-side, but the difference has to be subtle. I seriously feel like I'm set up for years to come with this card and monitor setup (not to mention the whole PC heh).
My Dell Ultrawide is starting to die, weird dark blotchy spots that are getting bigger. I think the diffuser layer is melting or separating. Thinking about picking up an LG OLED to replace it as an OLED will never have that issue. My GTX 1070 will not be able to drive it at 4k but at 1440p it might just be good enough, especially in games with FSR support.
Personally I’ve always taken the resolution > refresh rate approach because 90% of my use is outside of gaming. Workspace and media consumption are higher priorities. Only in recent months I was able to get a 4K 144Hz IPS panel for under $500, so I finally made the jump from 4K60. The only games I care about having over 60fps are competitive games that don’t require much and my 3080 has aged like fine wine.
Did you tried DSR on your old 1440p monitor ? It can render up to 4x 1440p and downscales it again to 1440p, looks definitely better than 4k without AA
2160p is a no-brainer for everything but gaming. Text and productivity apps just look so much better. I'm waiting for a 2880p monitor, preferably with an OLED or IPS Black panel. That's unlikely to happen in my lifetime, though.
Please excuse my second comment as I want to make a second question. Very different in nature. I have been playing games (casually) on the PC since the 90s. I would therefore love to re-play some games at high resolutions such as 8K. I have played old games at 4K (DSR) on a 1080p Monitor. Would I see a difference playing old classics such as Far Cry 2, GTA S.A. on a 4K Monitor with a resolution higher than 4K? I am perhaps one of the very few out there who want to purchase a 6800XT only to play games at resolutions over 4K 😂
I run higher than native res all the time. Some games do a good job at pixel to pixel distinction and some games have a blur factor where the game just isn't as clear as it could be and it comes down to how it's coded and the engine. In this case.. rendering at 50% higher resolution can great increase image quality at the same resolution. Old games looking better at 8k/4k native? Absolutely dude, go for it.
A lot of older games break when playing at high resolution such as misalign/badly scaled UI. I was playing Half Life 2 at 4K and the crosshair looks really small compared to 1080p.
@@paul2609 True. I have experienced this. Not all games benefit from raising the resolution to eg 4K. As a general rule of thumb, I do try raising the resolution as it can reduce the sometimes "nasty" aliasing.
@@paul2609That's because 4k is a cinema standard intended for use on 50"+ TVs then you would actually be able to see everything including your cross hair lol. You are making the PC noob mistake of run ing way to high PPI for the small computer monitor. You are losing details because many of them are to small to even see because the PPI is to extreme. That's why they don't make 4k phones it's a waste and you lose many details.
paying double for something, that might fail or become - in some feature or plug port - obsolete by the time 4k becomes relevant natively on a budget..
@@BonanzaPilot 31:9 is too wide in my opinion, distorts perspective beyond realism and breaks that immersion a bit. What aspect / res are you at on the 32 monitor?
@@shmayazuggot8558 I'm running a M32U so 3840 x 2160 144Hz. So 16:9. Flight Sim is one of my primary games and on the 1440 monitor instruments would sometimes be hard to read unless I zoom in, on the 4k monitor its easy. The downside to this setup is that it is slightly more pixels than the 5120x1440 setup but my 3090 handles most games well at 4k, haven't had to downscale anything
@Andresito LT1 To each their own. I like the ultra wide for more space on the desktop horizontally. Gaming wise 16:9 is fine but I only have two monitors.
The competitive type won't even use 1440p, i remember watching Flusha play CS in like 2018 and his settings were something like 800x600 stretched, all settings lowest possible. Quake 3/Live players were basically playing in graybox mode.
I am using a LG 4k 27" 60Hz monitor and I have to say for desktop use it is fantastic, the relative small panel combined with that many pixels creates a stunning image. When gaming I render at 1440p resolution and upscale to 4k using AMD's RSR or FSR technique. It looks great as the pixel density covers up a bit of the unsharp edges almost acting as a antialiasing effect. I came from a 160Hz 1080p 23" monitor, the refresh rate was noticeable at first, but it doesn't really bother me capping things off at 60 fps.
Just got the LG C1 OLED 48" as a monitor. Friggin amazing. Nuff said. It's stupid that monitors these days don't even have a gloss option and have fallen far behind TV's in image quality, so that a 48" TV is the best monitor today, but it is what it is. Before I got the C1 I went and checked out the Samsung Neo G9 and it was junk by comparison. Ugly matte, weird looking, not tall enough and much worse image quality than a modern TV. Why can't someone make a 40" 4k OLED or QLED/FALD monitor, with a normal aspect ratio and curved and gloss options? Ridiculous that we need a TV to upgrade from 30" monitors.
TVs have typically always had the upper hand in image quality and PC monitors have always been junk but they are getting allot better and starting to catch up with big screen TVs image quality.
I have the LG C1 paired with a 3090 … can’t hit 120fps on most games without DLSS or FSR, but the image is so smooth due to G-Sync and VRR. And the HDR is amazing in game. I don’t regret it one bit
1440p looks great on that tv
i sold my 2080ti and went console only for a while, but couldnt stay away. i bought a 6800xt and couldnt get it to play nice with my LG b9 2020 tv. where as my old Nvidia card worked perfectly with it.
I’ve seen lots of videos of people using 21:9 resolutions on the C1. Since the blacks are real black, the black bars don’t stand out.
I’ve been trying to do this but can’t work out how to do it properly without the display or the GPU trying to stretch it. Not sure of the right process for creating the custom resolutions and retaining full HDR10 support, if that’s possible
@@Natedaskate I just did it now with my G1 and GTX1650 and it worked fine, I had scaling set to aspect ration.
Yeah, I have a 3080ti, actually two. They can’t push my C1 to 120 but I’m pretty solid around 70-80 fps. That’s where the benefits of G-Sync come in. When the frame rate drops drastically you don’t notice really.
Daniel Owen: *hypes up his 4K 120hz OLED*
My wallet: *stares at me threateningly* "Don't."
There's always a link in my description and it's currently on sale ;) but seriously make good financial decisions and only purchase I'd you can afford it lol
@@danielowentech I think that it is too much money for the return. Also the 6800XT isn't nearly as great at ray-tracing as what Nvidia has to offer. I'm using a 1440p/144hz G-Sync monitor with an RTX 2080 Super and it works great for RT, when using DLSS.
Even without FSR or DLSS I think it's still viable to play 1440p on a 4K as many games these days have a render scale setting. You set your resolution to 4K and setting scale to 60-70%. Which yes... you can't get 1440p exactly on a 4K screen with a % slider but you can get close. So that way you can still have a nice 4K UI and HUD but ease up in the rendering requirements.
Sorry but having 2 4k monitors and a RTX 3080 (previously a 1080), I completely disagree, its the same thing as getting a 144hz monitor and never wanting to go back. In competitive games I find myself noticing enemies from across the map that don't even register on 1080p. And at least for me, a regular dude who's never going pro, 60hz is plenty for my reflexes and flicks, and a higher refresh rate really won't fix my aim haha. And running 1440p on a 4k monitor looks worse than 1080p for some reason, unless you have a specific thing like DLSS. Just my experience. Once a cheaper 4k 144hz comes out, I'll definitely jump on it. But for $300, I'd always go 4k 60hz over any 1440p monitor.
@@00000005547 same, i have a 5k 120hz VR headset right now and its simply stunning and its simply so stunning that 1080p is just dead and old to me, i also pre ordered another VR headset that has according to reviewers and the people from varjo themselfes human eye resolution with a PPD of 70 while the avarage human eye has 65 so when i try that kind of crazy resolution i will probably never go back to something under 4K lol
If you have the horsepower to run the game the way you like at 4K, then if course by all means do it. But just don't write off going sub 4K on a 4K display if you need the performance. It's not terrible these days between upscaling tech and internal res scalers.
@@00000005547 it's the math of how you divide the pixels. 1080p goes evenly into 4k. 1440p does not. Letting the display decide how the pixels are split (setting the actual screen resolution to 1440p) is different from letting the game engine decide (setting to 4k but using a lower render resolution). Because the game can still anti alias to a 4k grid instead of the 1440p grid.
@@shashumga6766 varjo Aero?
People bashing 1440p while I’m here still playing 1080 for the past 11 years
It's what YOU'RE comfortable playing at. It doesn't matter what Joe Blow is doing because you should be gaming for you, not to impress everyone with your specs.
Thanks! This video helped me decide that I should stick to 1440p and be fiscally responsible.
Essentially, what this video is saying is if someone offers you luxury box seats to a sports event, be warned that once you are acclimated to the luxury, you will never want to go back to public stadium seating.
Old video but I can relate to going big all at once, and holding out for massive future improvement. I just upgraded from my 980Ti 1440p setup from about 10 years ago, to 4090 FE and C3 OLED. Really knocks my socks off just how much of an improvement it is. And I will keep this setup for probably another 10 years before I upgrade, but I'll be 50 by then (eek). For me it was more about maxing out 1440p at the time of purchase, and waiting until 4k ultra settings at above 100fps became possible before upgrading.
I like doing the same things. Really feel the difference rather than minor improvements
That's the right way to do it.
Used the same strategy! went from a GTX 970 to a 4090 recently, wont be tempted to upgrade anytime soon.
..unless for some reason the almost meme number generation is gonna be a banger (6090, unlikely though.)
I have 38 curved dell monitor, and LG C2 by side.First I thought I will use C2 only for gaming and movies, but more and more I use it daily. I think only on tv can one appreciate 4k, 38 ultrawide has way less area, it's incomparable.
I don't think it will last for 10 years in terms of technology, it will definitely outdate in 5 years
Sounds like me, 1080 Ti and a high-end 1440p monitor for the past 6 years. (and it still slays in 1440p).
Now have a 4090, and shopping for the right 4k monitor (harder to find).
I have a 4090 and a 1440p monitor. People say that's overkill. People who say that are essentially saying that too many fps is not good and having less fps is what I should want. I don't like those people. They are bad people and should be punished.
😂😂😂😂 I love this comment
I had a 60hz 4k monitor I tried for a while, went to a 1440p 165hz and had to go back. The image quality downgrade was noticeable and I had a nice enough card (6900 XT) to play at 4K at well above 60 fps in most games even at ultra settings. So I picked up an IPS 4k 120hz and have been very happy since then. And now that FSR is getting popular, there's no reason to go back.
Yeah this is the first time I disagree with dr. Owen here. Basically I just wanted to game at 4k. That was all I wanted for the 30/600 series. That was also my main goal for this year, all I wanted was just an affordable entry to 4k gaming, and, but well here we are lol so much for 40 series looking remotely attractive.
1440p looks MUCH better than 1080p. Can't say for certain 4k, but heard it's not as big an uplift 1440 to 4k as 1080 to 1440, but yeah, I refuse to use FSR or DLSS. If I have to use an upscaler is saying "this hardware can't do that." Upscaling has been a thing for decades; it wasn't a standard before for a reason. So. To me is about running native.
I don't see the point to upscale for literally the same exact reason I see zero reason for using RT+DLSS because why would I pay out the ass to slash my framerate for pretty lights, only to blur/smudge/artifact/ghost the entire rendered scene only to get some not all fps back? So now it looks worse and gets lower fps, great much wow. So to me, it's literally the same type of thing, why would I pay so much for 4k, just to completely ruin the experience with upscaling??? High fidelity is the whole point. And yes I am willing to pay for this kind of experience, it's just this year was supposed to see the $400-450 7700XT match 6800XT so you can game at 4k with a midrange card. If I can't game at 4k I have literally no reason to upgrade GPU right now otherwise.
@@drek9k2 4k vs 1440p depends A LOT on the size of the screen and how close your face is to it and I don't see that being mentioned here
6900 XT… 4k 60fps ultra? I doubt it man my 4070ti OC struggles most games.. high settings yes, DLSS 3.0 getting much better like cyberpunk runs well at high. What other specs you running?
@richie231186 At the time, I was running an X570 am4 board / 5950 / 32 gigs with 6900 XT reference water cooled with a decent OC. On bf 2042. I would get easily over 60 fps in ultra mode (no RT).
@@drek9k2 seems like you don’t have experience with modern upscalers, it’s absolutely as good as native and in some areas better. Most issues with DLSS can be fixed with a simple dll swap.
Completely agreed, I had a 4K120 monitor on loan from work to replace my 1440p144Hz (both 27"). Returned it recently and I'm immediately disappointed to be back at 1440p, even for 1440p content.
Completing agreed! I went from 4k 60hz to 1440p 165hz and instantly regretted. Now I'm on CX 4k 48 OLED.
Try dldsr to 4K…
I would chose 1440p 144hz over 4k every day of the week
@@Alex-bl8uhresolution means nothing without the high native framerates to back it up. Framerate response and smoothness are much more important than extra fancy graphics and gimmick tech demos effects that can't even be run at high framerates natively on a $2000+ highest end GPU lol.
@@leanlifter1 so you agree with me?
Game engine render scaling also produces a much better image on 4K. Like Cyberpunk 2077 at 50% render on 4K looks dramatically better than 1080p does, only slightly worse than native 4K, but gets about the same framerate 1080p does.
You're better off using a higher resolution with a lower DLSS setting too if you can, than just playing at the lower resolution. The extra clarity actually can help a lot in some games.
because 50% render from 4k IS indeed a higher resolution than 1080p.
1080p would be 25% from 4k.
@@mydroidx1013 50% scaled at 4K is 1080p. The scaling factor is applied to both dimensions of the resolution, since 4K is 3840x2160 that gets you 1920x1080. That's even on nvidia's DLSS chart showing the effective render scale at 50%.
That's because 50% isn't 1080p.
Gaming at 4k in 2023 is really wonderful
I'm playing at 4k with a 7900 xtx and OLED screen...can't go back to 1440. Huge jump in color definition and clarity.
Resolution is relative to size and distance. You can't make resolution recommendations without taking screen size and seating distance into account. While it's fair to assume PC gamers are primarily seated at a desk we can take seating distance foe granted. So if you are gaming on a display larger than 34", 4k is easily recommendable, while 1440p works at 34" and below.
I agree with you on the subject of upscaling tech has gotten a lot better to a point where integer upscaling is no longer needed to maintain a good looking image, however a 240hz 2k monitor is still a lot cheaper than a 240hz 4k monitor. In fact you can buy a 240hz 2k to play games on, + a 60hz 4k display to watch movies and stuff and still have some money left.
I think the built in upscaler on the LG CX I have, and almost no doubt a C1 by extension, already does a great job. Even playing my switch or games at 1080p on the CX looks better than my 1080p ips monitor, and not just because of the better colors and motion clarity. I think the ups along process essentially gives you free AA, getting rid of jaggies while still preserving detail, as least that’s how it looks to me. I love my CX even if I can’t run native 4k in most games, but I agree in it making me want to upgrade sooner than I normally would!
This guy is the whiter than Casper the ghost 😂
@@bazle64Got a problem with Whites, woman?
There is actually one more thing that is worth noticing - content consuming quality. I'm not talking about UA-cam which is 99,99% of the times 60fps 1080p, but something like huge huge movies with outstanding visuals in 4k - definitely worth it in my eyes. I've watched the avengers at 42' oled 4k display - there is no coming back from that.
4k oled would put me in debt
Tbh pcs are one of the cheapest hobbies like your say. Even racing a basic car for a year is going to set you back $5000-10,000 a year in maintaining, fueling and entering. Plus all the equipment and tools you need.
Although it has got more expensive in the past year or two, it has been moving at a decent pace unlike the dark ages where we go 20 gens of 4c8t bintel while AMD was pushing out pileofpoodriver.
This is what I have to remind myself when I feel bad about spending a few hundred upgrading my rig, hell sone golf clubs cost more than my whole PC, and we won’t even get into vehicle modding!
For me, I look at 4K as unnecessary for gaming. I played at 1080p for a long time, and just bought bigger displays as the years went by. I only recently decided to dabble into a higher resolution after I got my 6800 XT. My 32" 1080p 60hz monitor was not enough for my upgraded HEDT PC so I went up to 1440p 165hz display, and I'm satisfied with my choice. I'm not going to ever go 4K PC display. But I probably will get a 4K front projector HDTV, someday.
You had a 32in 1080p? Are you sitting 8 ft back from your monitor? I can see pixels on that big of a 1080 pretty easily from normal desk distances.
Hey fellow projector 📽 enthusiast I game 1080p 165hz for fps shooters and 1080p 120 hz hdr projector dsr 4K looks incredible. Will upgrade to 4K 120hz projector when cards can actually run that in a couple of years
This is what most people who never used a 4K monitor for more than a week says.
@@paul2609 even in a game like valhiem which has really low resolution everything I can tell the difference between 1080, 1440, and 4k and that's only on a 27in monitor.
@@No-One.321You can't even comfortably read text on a tiny little 27" 4k monitor let alone see all the rest of the details you are missing out on such a small screen with big resolution.
Me : *proceeds to put the video to 4k at my 1080p monitor*
I still agree to that.
2016 people were saying WOW we have a true 4k card with the 1080 ti...it could run games and it was nothing but decent.
2018 people were saying 1080 ti was ok but not a real 4k card. The 2080 ti...yep was good could handle some games but still not there.
2020 we have the almighty 3080 people are saying 2080 ti was a scam and not a 4k card. Now the 3080 is a decent piece of hardware but still struggle in A LOT of titles.
We are still not 4k ready in my opinion. From now id say 3~ years and we are there.
I wouldnt buy a 4k monitor but everyone can decide and choose, thats the good thing.
But I guess my point in this video is that now the 3080 can play upscaled 1440p on a 4k screen using dlss that doesn't look as good as native 4k but does look better than native 1440p whereas in 2016 the 1080ti couldn't do that.
The 1080 ti WAS a 4k card in 2016. Games were easier to run and 4k also meant 4k/60 so yeah. 1080 ti was certainly a 4k capable card back then. Then the 2080 ti had to contend with 120hz monitors and fell short especially with the 2018 games getting demanding.
@@danielowentech Oh yeah sure i got the point of the vid. Ima just no fan of upscaling technology. I personally have a true 1440p running full details at 60 or more FPS rather than 4k and having to change to medium details. Might be possible that 4k gives u a sharper look but changing details, specially on shadows and textures makes to game look worse again, so there is no point of changing resolution to 4k if u have to lower everything else to get a 60 FPS. @ 1440p iam basically always safe to hit 60 FPS + max details even on the most demanding games.
@@christophermullins7163 Even before that, the entire marketing around the Fury was it was a 4K card, which launched 2 weeks apart from the 980ti. Altho back then of course 60Hz was your limit at that resolution.
Games getting more demanding over time is a thing that has always happened. What doesnt happen as often is moving up the refresh rates. So in 2018 when we got both higher resolution and higher refresh rates, suddenly people did start saying that 4K wasnt possible somehow because it cant (or in reality - just harder*) to hit those frame rates, they seem to just ignore there are quite a few numbers between 60 and 144. I dont personally consider something a fail because it cant lock on to the highest FPS. I have my own preference of what is acceptable and while I enjoy higher refresh rates, I am good at anything over 60 - its a bonus. And you absolutely can game at 4K at over 60 in the vast majority of things.
Thats the other wonderful argument they roll out - X game cant run at X frame rate therefore the entire thing is a fail..... (?!) So **** the other 14K games out there then??
4090: allow me to introduce myself
I particularly like the scaling function when it is available, on my 1440p monitor I usually do anywhere from 1.2-1.4x, 4K is doable but the monitor technology isn't there yet (in terms of quality, 32" sizes etc.), it will be coming soon though, maybe within the next year.
Absolutely and i think on 1,5x 1440 p it looks better than 4k without AA. 4k is no holy grail, it still pixels at the edges if you dont use AA or DSR.
Honestly, I don't care about resolutions. I just don't want to see individual pixels when staring at my monitor. And 4K gives me the best chance at that
Seriously, some of my best gaming experiences were over 20 years ago when I played at 800 x 600. 1440p only looks bad if you become used to 4k, otherwise you can live without it. Funnily enough, I used to enjoy watching movies before 4k and HD as well. Remember, 4k might seem cool today but it's tomorrow's crap.
The aswer is NO, because there is no default standart upsaler in DX or Vulcan. The main problem is Nvidia with there proprietary software stack.
Not now.
Proprietary Gimmick stack to be more honest about reality. LOL
Im running my PC in my living room with a 65 inch 4K display. I can NEVER go back to anything below 4K.
Well yeah it's 65 inches? 45 inch would be sharp with 1440p.
@@portman8909yeah exactly. This giy doesn't know what he talking about stay a little bit close to 4k 65" and you will start to count pixels. 1k, 2k or 4k are just marketing numbers ppi is the true metric for monitors since you will be closer to your monitor most of the time.
4k gaming is for dudes who were facebook “bacon” guys. They went from cat memes to barely grasping the most basic concepts when it comes to gaming peripherals
@portman8909 1440p good up to 32 inch, over 32 4k is really needed
@@A-BYTE94 i do believe 2k cutoff is 27"
I have a Samsung Odyssey Neo G7 43" 4K 144Hz HDR600 Monitor. Depending on the game I use it in either 4k or 1440. At 1440 typically 32" is the most I would say the resolution looks good on without looking all pixelated. BUT, with a 4K screen @1440, you get all of the pixel density of 4k but the 1440 image doesn't look pixelated or stretched. Its a Monitor that can last me a very long time and across multiple GPU upgrades.
Oh, and to those that are thinking that I overpaid for that monitor, I got it 50% off during the Amazon Prime Day sale for only $500.
1440p ftw. I had a 22" 1080p monitor and switched to a 27" 1440p one and the difference is huge. But honestly, I don't see a a reason to have a 4k panel. The trade for performance doesn't look great, specially for a 3070, which is my card. Maybe in the future. But not today. I know DLSS makes performance better as you said. But I rather use DLSS at 1440p. Better lifetime for my GPU, I guess
same card and resolution as you, agree on all points.
I do it the other way around, I bought a 31,5'' WQHD monitor and WQHD looks good.... but gaming in 4K using DL-DSR looks even better and with DLSS on top, you don't have such a huge performance hit. But my RTX 4070 died yesterday and now my consideration is to buy a RX 7800 XT. Unfortunately, AMD cards don't have Deep Learning, which means I would have to use tradiotional super samling in the form of Virtual Super Resolution to render the games in 4K. The question is whether the raw power of the 7800 XT can compensate for the lack of AI.
this is more true even now... in my opinion 4k is a new standard for high fidelity gaming... the games benefit big time from 4k render resolution... especially if TAA and FSR or DLSS is involved... these games just need the base resolution to put out a clear image... playing modern games at FHD resolution just looks way to blurry and fuzzy... this is because of the anti aliasing technigue... older games with msaa look good at FHD...
BUT: if you got 4k rendering going on, the games profit alot from taa and stuff because it has the ability to smooth out lines really nice... altough there are things i dont like about taa like the blurr, or artefacts... its crazy that so many games have weird artefacts going on...
seeing the 6950xt getting sold for around 600 euros, and below, really is something...
and the ability to set the resolution to 8k in not so demanding titles like most of the halo titles is crazy ... bye bye fizzy lines...
halo reach for example, it looks so good at 8k... gives older games new life...
Now that there is 32" 144Hz UHD monitors for under $1000, it is beginning to be interesting to play at this definition. So if I had to buy a monitor today, I would probably choose an UHD one
If this was 5+ years ago, I would have wanted 4k, but I've noticed that with a lot of newer games, they are delivering a cleaner image at 1080p, not as good as 4k, but compared to what games used to look like at 1080p, today's 1080p looks a lot cleaner, so much so that I don't really care about 4k, but will jump on the 1440p bandwagon on my next upgrade.
But don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed to higher resolutions, but you can do higher end gaming quite cheap at lower resolutions and honestly, I feel it's crazy to spend so much more for a few extra pixels and sharpness to the image, you end up getting the vast bulk of the quality, whiles paying a fraction of the price, 4k ultra settings is quite expensive whereas at lower resolutions, it can be done quite cheap and with things like image sharpening on, you get quite a clean image, especially when viewing on a tv.
The new AntiAliasing techniques largely negates the allure of the old school method of throwing more resolution at the problem to resolve the jagged edges. It's only jaded Techtubers with an angle to work and their army of noob minions that are pushing ultra high artificial price inflation, fakeframes, RT and ultra stupid resolutions on a tiny monitor to small to view all the pixels properly.
Now you really have to rethink bc these 40 series making 4k the sweet spot now lol
OLED as a monitor isn't an option for me anyway., Not because of burn in concerns because could use it as a gaming only secondary display but they're too damn big. Ideally I'd love a 32" one but maybe I'd settle for 40.
Still the way I look at it is that FSR and DLSS are not universally applied because they aren't in every game so I wouldn't buy say a 1440p card and build a 4K oriented build that relies on upscaling or reconstruction to fill my display natively. It all comes to personal preference in the end though and I'd rather use a 4K card on a 1440p high fps build. Things are changing but I still believe native resolution is king, it's the way the game was designed to be played, it's not blurred or details added or removed or sharpened etc.
I have 32" 4k Samsung monitor and mine friend calibrated it 😋 . Colours after calibration are sweet like 10x more colourfull now + improved shadow details 🙂😃😁 Monitors are as well great, just best after calibration with profi equipment & real measurements.😉🙂
the main problem with 4k monitors for competitor players is the size of the screen. with 1080p 24 Inch u can notice whats happening faster and u wont need to look around
tell that to RTS players, with higher resolution you can usually see much more compared to 1080p
With a bigger frame 1440p/4k 32" you see more and pan the camera less. 24" 1080p is a very very narrow view and requires allot more panning of the camera because you see allot less information in each frame.
A huge factor is screen size to viewing distance. If you sit too far to see the detail difference between 4k and 1080p then there is no reason to run a 4k resolution. For example if you sit 8ft away from a 42" 4k screen you likely couldn't tell the difference when in game. Now a 100" 4k at the same distance you can spot the sharpness increase on 4k. I sit about 10ft away from 65" and it's borderline, I am tempting to go up to 75" for my viewing distance.
Got an LG C1 after seeing your video. Got a nice monitor arm and have been enjoying gaming on all my consoles and PC on this TV. 4K is pretty awesome too my RTX 3090 is finally getting a workout now. Came from a 34in 3440x1440 ultrawide.
Can't go back, my two monitors are 163PPI and I love the clarity.
I went from a 600p viewsonic back in the day playing Runescape, to a 1080p LED with horrible view angles, to a 1440p mac monitor with good color accuracy, to an ASUS 4K 144Hz 27inch with G-Sync, I really will never ever ever ever ever look back. I agree 100% with how much the DLSS and FSR upscalers are compared to not having the technology and relying on perfect pixel scaling. I love having high frame-rates in both single player and multiplayer games, north of 90 minimum which I why I went with a 4K 144Hz. Sure it's not ultra settings, it's optimized settings, which provide a crystal clear beautiful fluid experience with densely packed pixels makes all the difference
I I know this is older but this advice is absolutely spot on I have a55 in 4k 144hz TV with a 4080 I will never go back!
I have a 4k120 TV for simracing on a mid range pc (3060ti FE incoming!!!-lucky) . Games with TAA resolution scalers are actually very good. But yeah can confirm 1440p looks blurry close up, but actually when using casually, a good 3-4m far away, it's really hard to tell.
4k on a big huge TV would probley have similar PPI as a 1440p 31.5" monitor.
I see a lot of people saying they can’t tell the difference between 4K and 1440p and that’s probably true on a 27-32” LCD monitor but the jump in image quality from 1440p LCD to 4K OLED is Huge! 1440p looks pretty blurry by comparison
absolutely correct
Yep. I HAVE to game in 4K because I have a 65 inch tv and anything less looks blurry. I have a 5600x and 6800xt. I just usually run low settings in games to get the highest frames possible because it still looks great at low settings. I avg over 150fps on most games like destiny 2 and battlefield so 4K low seems to be my sweet spot.
@@thatsamazin- Well, I'm running a 3080 with an 10850k on a 48 LG 120 hertz and yes 1440 looks blurry and almost like 1080p. So I rather lower the setting at high or medium and enjoy the crisp details of 4k.. By the way, where and how did you get the 6800xt?
I use a 27" 170hz 1440p IPS display with a 5900X and RX 6800 XT. It's perfect. I tried to aim for a 4K card but use it in a 1440p setup and have plenty of hardware fuel for a high fps playstyle with maxed out settings natively first. I don't think I'm ready for a 4K display but if I do it won't be bigger than 40". Anything above that on my desk just feels too big. I don't want to have to turn my head to look at mini maps etc. It just doesn't appeal to me personally.
Most people don't even have the monitors or tv for a side by side comparison. I thought my IPS was excellent until I got my OLED CX 48".
Everyone, who already owns some high repetition rate display (in my case it was a tablet) should try before buying.
Side by side several rates with and without motion blurr are very helpful.
For me with motion blurr, 60Hz is absolutely enough! Above that even with very small very fast objects, it does not look smoother.
So please, never disable motion blurr in your games, and you might not need 120Hz.
By the way 120Hz is stressful for GPU and monitor.
If you look for lower latency, the repetition rate is typically such a small part of it, it makes sense to optimize graphics settings and input devices first.
In a video, where you watch the whole screen, 1080p is a great resolution. The wish for higher resolution comes only, when you start to look at smaller parts of the display. This however happens quite often in some kind of video games. For racing or roleplay maybe not, but strategy and shooters it is very common. And there a 4k can start making sense.
I can barely get a consistent 144hz @ 1440p out of a stupid expensive 6900XT so i have zero interest in 4k. Sure i'd love 16k for the pixel size and the weird pixel effect some games have (which isn't even gone on my 14 inch 4k laptop). If you scale that up to a 28 inch screen even 8k won't remove that so 16k just might but there is just no way to drive that much pixels. And if we even get there in a decade from now that doesn't even take into account the fact games get better and better looking = less fps (slowly but it's happening). I think 1080p/1440p with amazing graphics beats 4k/8k/16k gaming on low anytime despite the pixel effects that can be irritating.
Also it's great yet worrying that despite implementation ease DLSS seems to get more implementation. And applications like magpie don't seem to be it for me. They force you to run in a window which costs performance and latency to begin with.
And yeah i play every game max settings for regular play. Only battlefield 5 i turn down as low as possible (except for the textures). Every fps matters but sadly BF5 is CPU capped hard.
The thing is, upscaling is good enough now that I don't care and rather have a 4K screen and get the benefits in media consumption compared to a 1440p screen.
I just got a 28" 4K 144Hz monitor with G-Sync for $450. Such an awesome deal. Upgraded from a 32" 1440p monitor. The pixel density is much much higher. Driving it with an RTX 3080 laptop
Probably with fake hdr tho.
@@tmsphere of course it's the fake HDR400. I sold it, though, and now game on an LG B2 OLED with an RTX 4080 laptop. Loving my setup
1080p is more than enough.
Everything higher than that is marketing for new hardware.
I totally agree with you about maxing out settings and spoiling myself with the lg c1. I wish I had a stronger gpu but my Xfx Rx 6800 does a pretty good job at high settings in most hard to run titles but easy older titles run flawlessly.
@Lurch that's pretty good scores but those are just benchmark scores and don't represent what you would get during actual gameplay with any game. Ive had Xfx cards in the past too never had them fail in anyway. I usually undervolt my cards and keep the fan speeds down typically stay around 900rpm and my temps stay super low with the Xfx rx 6800. I enjoy it and I got it for a steal right during the crypto boom so I'm happy with it and most of my games I play run over 60fps on my c1 at 4k. I mostly play the Assassin's Creed franchise and other aaa single player games. Otherwise I play on my Dell S27dgf 1440p 165hz monitor.
Playing RDR2 and Ghost of Tsushima at 4k in HDR is SO SICK, and I can't believe how much more defined the clarity is. It's a whole new level. It's kind of like going from 60 to 144 fps (for AAA games. I don't play E-sports) where 60 fps is still totally okay, but the responsiveness and smoothness is surely missed if you can't hang with current hardware.
I went 4k when I bought my 1080ti and haven't looked back. I'm now using a 3090 ftw3 and decided to stick to 60hz instead of 120hz simply because even with dlss you can't always play at max details and for me a steady 60 is butter smooth even with shooters.
I used to think 60fps locked Vsync was great until I tried a 165hz panel with Adaptive Sync. No screen tearing no Vsync needed. Adaptive Sync and HDR are the best new tech that actually makes games better without tanking performance but making it much much better at the same time.
@@leanlifter1 Heh, yeah I recently bought a hisense u8k 55" 144hz vrr set and its been great. It has wide range vrr that goes from 48~144hz so the image is smooth no matter the fps. You do start to notice a bit of frame drops if you go much under 60fps but with competitive settings I'm hitting the upper limits anyways. This new crop of high end tv are very nice for gaming and not all that more expensive than a comparable dedicated pc display.
@@nonaurbizniz7440 Never tried VRR I just have a Samsung G5 1440p 32" it has Adaptive Sync Free Sync premium and G sync branded. Monitors are actually decent now in days. 10+ years ago you really could not find a decent quality monitor even for $500+ from a top brand they were all absolutely terrible but at leased their were high quality Sony 1080p TVs to use as a stop gap until something great came along a decade+ later lol.
Even top GPU's are not powerful enough to run max settings of most AAA titles at high framerates. 1440p is the way to go unless you are upgrading your GPU again soon.
I got a Samsung 4K monitor and a Radeon AMD 7900 XT and runs everything ultra like butter ^_^ I got amazed everytime I play.
Daniel - can you maybe do a video on the differences between 1080 upscaled to 4K and 1440 upscaled to 4K? (with fsr/dlss)
Would love to see how much of a difference there is (or isnt) between both scenarios.
Not just because of the pixel mapping math favouring 1080 to 4K - but also the fact that 1080 is going to give a lot of us a whole lot more FPS with all other settings at max/ultra ..
sad that he didn't respond to this.
It depends on what you play. If he plays more story games, then 60Hz is enough, where he will enjoy a sharper image and ultra details. For multiplayer 1440P.
you can have both 4K and 120Hz
@@A-BYTE941440p 240Hz> 4k 120hz. People who play story games dont count as gamers.
@@itsv1p3r xd, fortnite does count as a game
@@itsv1p3r ofc 4k 120hz > 1440p 240hz
I play cs2, Rainbow Six, Racing games and games like Factorio
Man, if I spent as much on gaming as I spent on anime figures...
There are so many technologies that can do this: FSR, DLSS, TAAU, FidelityFX Resolution Scaling, and the myriad of built in "home grown" upscalers out there. Not to mention that nearly all modern monitors and TVs have some kind of enhancement over "just stretch it and do colour average for each pixel in the native matrix". For most people the days are long gone where dropping resolution was an automatic application of The Horrendous Vaseline Filter(TM). Obviously the ones that are built in to the games work the best. Second choice is driver provided solution (for those who can actually figure out how to make a per-game profile), and lastly, if you're SOL, let the monitor/TV do the trick.
I LOVE gaming in 4k ULTRA.. my target was keeping ultra settings at 60 fps with my 2080 Ti and I can run 99% games in that setting. Moving from a 34" ultrawide to my LG 43" IPS monitor is the best thing ever! always wanted a big screen experience monitor, not a tv. And I love it! The colors, the sharpness.- is amazing... I will NEVER go back from 4K gaming. I can agree that a 27" 4K is ridiculous stupid. But 4K 43" IPS = YES BABY!
Yup 4K @ 27" you can't even see or read icons on the desktop without scaling then up to where they look to big for the small screen lol. I guess the PC gamers that game on such tiny monitors have their eyes three inches from the screen at all times lol. I agree go bigger on the monitor/TV so you can actually see everything.
@@leanlifter1haha I could imagine! I have since changed my screen for a LG 42" OLED and even on that I run 125% Windows scale! :) So I cant imagine a 27"! :) But over time I have found this to be a very good sweet spot. 42". Big to have the "big screen expereience" and still "small" enough to have in front as desktop solution. I love my C2 LG.
I just don't care enough about games to worry about it. I'm usually sick of whatever I'm playing within an hour so I don't bother upgrading past 1440
0:06 am i high or did daniel's highbrows go super funky there
I have two 34 inch ultra wides. One Is 120hz and the other is 144hz. Both are IPS and G-Sync. The look great no doubt.
However, my 65 inch C1 blows them away. Such a better gaming experience.
Are you console or PC gaming on the 65”?
@@cliffordduhh45 PC. 3090ti
@@OhItsThatI just don't believe you can't tell the difference in refresh rate.
@@tmsphere But he can definitely tell which one is OLED lol
For the time being 4K delivery only makes sense for huge screens. For every day use It really only makes sense for scanners and cameras right now.
a sample: if u have a monitor where u cant never ever do an overclock for it!? then just use the cvt-rb1/2 on a gpu driver and make sure ur mhz goes lower. it will speed up ur gtg response time. and for this reason u can boost some different settings on ur monitor until it doesnt goes higher then the mhz it can accept; where then the mhz will goes with it higher; maybe the speed of the monitor or maybe the sync time of the pixels. a sample: take a 2k 60hz monitor use cvt-rb, it goes autom from 450xxxmhz to 350xxxmhz. the only think what u have to do are change every number after 35 to number 9: (359999). and it goes from himself to 90hz 12bit color and it still are on 2k monitoring. u can do the same on a 4k monitor.
720p and 1080p also integer scale to 4k. so if framerates is really what you need, it's not like you would even need an fsr scaler to keep it looking good.
And then there is me. Who lives both PC's and cars...
#goodbyebank
Me asf 😭😭
I played 4k on my tv
Couch gaming is better suited for that
When i go competitive the aoc 24G2 with 1080p144 is my go to monitor
3060ti is good enough
I cannot tell the difference btw a 32" 1440p and 2160p running same game same setting. I have to be like less than 10 inches from the screen to tell the pixel.
Yep, that's the main issue. The difference is so subtle outside of text rendering you have to actively look for it to notice but fps drops by 50%. I tried going from a high end 32" 1440p VA to a 32" 4k IPS and returned it immediately due to the poor contrast, backlight bleed, dead pixels and barely any difference in games or movies.
I'm looking at buying the Sony Bravia XR A90k 42" tv as a monitor in my semi truck. I'll be building out a new MATX desktop system later this year to replace my laptop. Just waiting on Intel 15th gen and the RTX 5000 series.(Either the 5080 or 5090)
Personally I mostly play Indie games, though I do dabble in some triple A titles, ones that can be modded usually. I've mostly given up on competitive oriented games anymore, I just play whatever's fun to me. I even built a home dedicated server for hosting some games for the discord I'm on.
Anymore and I certainly prefer crisp images over frames. I play a lot of survival builder games, RPGs, RTS, TBS, Racing, and a few other oddball games out there.
I think with current hardware and next gen hardware coming, 4k 120/144hz should be pretty easy to obtain.
With the upscaling technologies we have today, 1440p on a 4K monitor is better, but one thing to keep in mind is that 4K monitors are more expensive, as well as the fact that you still need a stronger GPU to drive a 4K monitor, seeing as turning settings down to medium or low would be a waste. So in the end, it all comes down to budget. 1440p is the sweet spot at the moment, seeing as you need at least a 3080 to truly enjoy 4K, and that's not exactly the tier of cards the vast majority of gamers have.
With AMD going strong in the GPU market, though, this could easily change in a generation or two, thanks to competition.
I just built my first gaming PC and people are telling me that I can’t game at 4k because I only have a 4070ti.
@@dauntae24Those people think that PC gaming means turning the settings to pre configured Ultra and if the GPU does not run it @ 4k and 500+fps is garbage. Typically this is because they don't have a clue on how to dial in the settings and turn them down lol for their hardware. The 4070ti can natively run 99% of all games @ 4k high not ultra settings especially when you turn off the rt gimmicks in the two games that support them lol.
From a productivity standpoint 4k is faaaar superior to 1080p. A large 4k or 3.5k ultrawide is much easier to work with running mutliple windows and doing stuff side by side. Also great for gaming if you have the GPU for it. 1080p is only for esports these days.
I mean 4k 120fps mostly on cod Cold War says otherwise with medium rt it looks amazing with a 4070 ti using dlss quality preset I’d argue going directly from 1440p to 4k I chalk and cheese the image quality at 4k 32 inch is amazing not so to say 1440p is bad it’s good and performance is always really good but until you experience in person it’s hard to describe just how good 4k really looks.
This Video was ahead of it's time. Thinking of buying a M32uc Monitor. (4k 144hz)
I play on a 3840 x 1600 38" monitor. Games, particularly the FOV, look absolutely amazing at that type of resolution if the game supports it of course.
I just bought a m32u 4k monitor for gaming.. now I’m wondering if that was a mistake?
Well it will still look great but you aren't seeing the most out of what 4k has to offer until about 50"+ big screen TVs are what it is for to maintain clarity and sharpness like 1440p @ 32".
The secret is being too poor to afford a good 4k display
I got the GIGABYTE M32U at the end of last year. It does 4k at 144Hz and I got it for around $500. With my 6800 XT, I get 90+ frames at high to max settings in most games I've tried without FSR.
To me it is more about how 4K vs 1440P looks on a 32" monitor and how far I can sit from it (working/playing at my desk). With 4K I would have to lean forward to read the text. 1440P is my sweet spot. With 4K movies/shows, there is a certain "plastic/too perfect" look that bugs me. Maybe I'll get used to that.
I got a RTX 3070 and a 4K 60Hz 43-inch TV, and there are many old or easy-to-run games that run fine on ultra 4K 60fps. If you try 4K and 1440p, you know 4K is much better and not a waste. What i want now is a +120hz 4k 50 inch gaming TV, there are some selling for a good price.
You can play 1660p (3k) idk if that on a 4k Is blurry , i mean 3k + fsr (magpie/lossless scaling/native)
Keep in mind though that every panel has pros and cons and u better be specific about your needs before buying, like: do u have a bright room or lots of lightsources hitting ur screen? Is it for gaming only or for movies or work too? Do u occasionally watch from an angled position? are u more into darker colored games/ movies/whatever? Even oled isnt the best for everything and there are issues with burned in pixels on oled screens if the displayed image doesnt change for a long time, like ur non moving desktop for example (but I heard oleds got better with that).
And I wont even start on the hertz sub topic.
I think Daniel might be right and 4k screens got a lot cheaper too since the vids upload. But especiallyu now u have to do your research, not only about your specific needs and circumstances, but probably about old 4k oled screens being sold for a little less money, but still having probably big risks to it.
Im still amazed by my 1440p 144hz IPS screen for its beautiful colors, surprisingly high brightness but really dark hues. And I can watch movies/UA-cam from an angle and still perfectly see everything.
There are pros and cons for every panel, so be really sure about what fits your needs.
@8:10 i think exactly the same as you. When i spend a couple g's on a gaming rig, i think to myself there are a lot more expensive hobbies out there, like car enthusiasts and car modders.
This makes me review my build. Thanks.
To be honest, i can hardly tell the difference between 1440p and 4k. Hell, I can hardly tell the difference between 1080p and 4k when sitting at my couch looking at a tv from a fair distance away. I think 4k has had way too much emphasis on it. It just doesn't offer the kind of benefits for the performance hit and hardware cost that is required, especially in gaming where motion completely destroys the sense of pixels anyway.
Even a year later with RTX 4090 playing Cyberpunk at maximum settings at 4K is out of question.
Play 4k on a 1440p Monitor 💪💪Its wayyy cheaper and looks same to go with 1440p and use DSR at 1,5-2x 💫. 4k gpu and screen is exponential more expensive.💷💷
DSR can render the game with up to 4x the 1440p res and downscale it to 1440p. It looks super crisp on 1440p screen, BETTER than 4k without AA. More like 1440p with 32xAA
4K is only a problem for PC users as most run on very old/weak hardware. Buy a $400 digital PS5 and all games are dynamic 4k/60fps minimum....and you can use a 75" HDR/Wide Gamut TV with decent 2020 color coverage. Don't bother with OLED. Buy a high end LCD. Get a newer HDMI 2.1 with 120fps (55/65) if you want to for still less money than a PC w/monitor and card needed for 4k.
IMO 1080p ruined the market. 10 years ago I bought 16:10 with res 1920x1200 and now considering an upgrade and 1440p is such a small upgrade compared to 4k options.
Fortunately I am a very casual gamer so I think I'll be just fine with 4k 60Hz monitor.
totally agree, DLSS/FSR really changes the calculus for 4k gaming. 1440p is still a perfectly valid choice, but 4k isn't as hard to drive as it used to be
I'm running triple 1440p native screens right now, however, I'm running all screens with DSR DL 4K enabled within Windows across all screens. Honestly, it looks freaking great to me and all my games look fantastic on my 4070 Ti SUPER, especially triple screen gaming with the DSR enabled. My thinking is that if I encounter games that don't play well at higher resolutions and/or when this card has aged, I can just set the resolution back down to native 1440p and probably gain quite a bit of performance. To me, this just makes sense and tbh I cannot tell the difference between this and true 4K. Perhaps if I had them side-by-side, but the difference has to be subtle. I seriously feel like I'm set up for years to come with this card and monitor setup (not to mention the whole PC heh).
My Dell Ultrawide is starting to die, weird dark blotchy spots that are getting bigger. I think the diffuser layer is melting or separating. Thinking about picking up an LG OLED to replace it as an OLED will never have that issue. My GTX 1070 will not be able to drive it at 4k but at 1440p it might just be good enough, especially in games with FSR support.
Personally I’ve always taken the resolution > refresh rate approach because 90% of my use is outside of gaming. Workspace and media consumption are higher priorities. Only in recent months I was able to get a 4K 144Hz IPS panel for under $500, so I finally made the jump from 4K60. The only games I care about having over 60fps are competitive games that don’t require much and my 3080 has aged like fine wine.
Did you tried DSR on your old 1440p monitor ? It can render up to 4x 1440p and downscales it again to 1440p, looks definitely better than 4k without AA
The 3080 is aging like milk with that 10GB vram at 4K.
@@V1CT1MIZEDit’s ridiculous. Its really the only thing holding it back. They have 12gb in the 3060, but 10 in the 3080.
@@V1CT1MIZEDfacts. Then when it can't run 4k anymore ppl will say you should have got a 4080. When the 6800xt would run the game just fine
2160p is a no-brainer for everything but gaming. Text and productivity apps just look so much better. I'm waiting for a 2880p monitor, preferably with an OLED or IPS Black panel. That's unlikely to happen in my lifetime, though.
I just really enjoy having a big screen. 43" 4k/120 on the desk and a 75" 4k/120 in the living room. I can't go back.
Please excuse my second comment as I want to make a second question. Very different in nature.
I have been playing games (casually) on the PC since the 90s.
I would therefore love to re-play some games at high resolutions such as 8K. I have played old games at 4K (DSR) on a 1080p Monitor.
Would I see a difference playing old classics such as Far Cry 2, GTA S.A. on a 4K Monitor with a resolution higher than 4K?
I am perhaps one of the very few out there who want to purchase a 6800XT only to play games at resolutions over 4K 😂
I run higher than native res all the time. Some games do a good job at pixel to pixel distinction and some games have a blur factor where the game just isn't as clear as it could be and it comes down to how it's coded and the engine. In this case.. rendering at 50% higher resolution can great increase image quality at the same resolution. Old games looking better at 8k/4k native? Absolutely dude, go for it.
@@christophermullins7163
Thank you Christopher for your detailed reply! Much appreciated!
A lot of older games break when playing at high resolution such as misalign/badly scaled UI. I was playing Half Life 2 at 4K and the crosshair looks really small compared to 1080p.
@@paul2609
True. I have experienced this. Not all games benefit from raising the resolution to eg 4K.
As a general rule of thumb,
I do try raising the resolution as it can reduce the sometimes "nasty" aliasing.
@@paul2609That's because 4k is a cinema standard intended for use on 50"+ TVs then you would actually be able to see everything including your cross hair lol. You are making the PC noob mistake of run ing way to high PPI for the small computer monitor. You are losing details because many of them are to small to even see because the PPI is to extreme. That's why they don't make 4k phones it's a waste and you lose many details.
paying double for something, that might fail or become - in some feature or plug port - obsolete by the time 4k becomes relevant natively on a budget..
I cant’t switch from 3440x1440 21:9 Ultra wide. Square kills immersion, to me returning to 16:9 is like trying to going back to a CRT 4:9.
Yeah I really like the wider desktop of 3440x1440.
I switched from a 5120x1440 49 inch monitor to a 32 inch 4k 144hz monitor and the experience is WAY better
@@BonanzaPilot 31:9 is too wide in my opinion, distorts perspective beyond realism and breaks that immersion a bit. What aspect / res are you at on the 32 monitor?
@@shmayazuggot8558 I'm running a M32U so 3840 x 2160 144Hz. So 16:9. Flight Sim is one of my primary games and on the 1440 monitor instruments would sometimes be hard to read unless I zoom in, on the 4k monitor its easy. The downside to this setup is that it is slightly more pixels than the 5120x1440 setup but my 3090 handles most games well at 4k, haven't had to downscale anything
@Andresito LT1 To each their own. I like the ultra wide for more space on the desktop horizontally. Gaming wise 16:9 is fine but I only have two monitors.
The competitive type won't even use 1440p, i remember watching Flusha play CS in like 2018 and his settings were something like 800x600 stretched, all settings lowest possible. Quake 3/Live players were basically playing in graybox mode.
Great channel, glad it popped up a week ago for me!
I am using a LG 4k 27" 60Hz monitor and I have to say for desktop use it is fantastic, the relative small panel combined with that many pixels creates a stunning image. When gaming I render at 1440p resolution and upscale to 4k using AMD's RSR or FSR technique. It looks great as the pixel density covers up a bit of the unsharp edges almost acting as a antialiasing effect. I came from a 160Hz 1080p 23" monitor, the refresh rate was noticeable at first, but it doesn't really bother me capping things off at 60 fps.
Your eyebrow is very animated. This isnt negative
Just got the LG C1 OLED 48" as a monitor. Friggin amazing. Nuff said.
It's stupid that monitors these days don't even have a gloss option and have fallen far behind TV's in image quality, so that a 48" TV is the best monitor today, but it is what it is.
Before I got the C1 I went and checked out the Samsung Neo G9 and it was junk by comparison. Ugly matte, weird looking, not tall enough and much worse image quality than a modern TV.
Why can't someone make a 40" 4k OLED or QLED/FALD monitor, with a normal aspect ratio and curved and gloss options? Ridiculous that we need a TV to upgrade from 30" monitors.
TVs have typically always had the upper hand in image quality and PC monitors have always been junk but they are getting allot better and starting to catch up with big screen TVs image quality.