What looks better, 1080p Ultra or 1440p/4k reduced graphics?

beany_bot

beany_bot

beany_bot

Soldato
Joined
19 Nov 2015
Posts
4,905
Location
Glasgow Area
Hi all. Currently running a 1080p 60Hz monitor.
Im a total graphics w**re. I don't play fast FPS / twitch based games so for me 60Hz is absolutely fine. For me its all about the visuals.

With that in mind. From folk who have experience. Which "looks" better?

1080p at max graphics, 1440p with reduced graphics, or 4k with further reduced graphics?

Basically looking for wow visuals with FPS anywhere down to 40 OK for me.

My GPU is OC'ed 390x and OC 4690K. 16GB RAM.
 
I'd go with better graphics and lower res screen tbh.

Visually, I didn't see much difference between 1440 and 4k on a 27" screen. So I wouldn't even consider 4k for gaming with it being such a massive performance hit.
 
Last edited:
Completely depends on viewing distance.

I have just tried the new tomb raider at lower settings on my 34" ultrawide at 3440x1440. I prefer it at 1080p maxed out on the projector because although it's 1080p and 100" screen I'm sat 14ft away which compensates. Effects like HBAO+ and advanced shadows are just too good to turn off and at 1080p I can afford 4x SMAA as well which keeps things nice.

Best game in years by the way :D

[edit] - arguement is totally different if the choice is between native and non-native on a single screen. I suspect native would win most times for me
 
Hmm true, can't quite get over how utterly stunning GTA V looks with this new card and everything maxed out. Getting 50-60fps with everything slammed out to the max and 4x MSAA. looks amazing. Catches you by surprise sometimes, sunrises, sunflares, things like that....wow.
 
I find 4k med-high settings looks far better than 1080p on ultra. The difference in detail is too much to overlook imo.

jM53VxC.jpg
 
So far I've had 2 780s, a 970 and 980 with a 24" 60hz screen, no difference at all between these. Then I bought a 1440p screen and improvement was huge - even running it on single 980. I wouldn't bother with 4k unless you have a strong card or SLI (970s or higher).
There will be times when FPS goes under 30 and it will be noticable (especially in games with projected textures = ground effects, sudden flashes etc ).
 
beany_bot said:
Impressive difference. But to be fair you must be quite zoomed in there. My 1080 games sure don't look like that lol.
Click to expand...

Likewise you can't see what UHD looks like on a monitor with lower resolution. :p But yes, UHD with medium to high on most games generally looks much nicer than Full HD with all the bells and whistles. The clarity in the distance and potential texture detail is vastly superior.
 
I think it's one of those things I really need to see in person. I might see if I can find someone with a 4K monitor so I can see 1440 and 4k in the flesh.
 
I've had 1440p and 4k. 4k does look nice and is very crisp compared with 1080p. But for me I prefer higher refresh for any type of game. I swapped my 4k 60hz for a 1440p 144hz. Never looked back. Just far smoother. Not just for fps but it has the benefit of faster response aswell as it being smoother.

I couldn't play 60fps anymore on any type of game. 100 is my min with mouse and 85 with a controller.

It does make a difference. I'd try high res and high refresh. See what you like overall.
 
Personally I prefer/ would opt for MOAR GRAFIXX at 1080p over less at higher resolutions.

As others have said too though, higher than 60 refresh rate and overall smoothness plays a massive part for me now too. I'll throw in gsync to mix it up further.

I think the real sweet spot at the moment for overall realistic attainable performance with all eye candy on is 1440p high Hz (100hz +) with gsync (or freesync I guess).
 
Went up to 4k for work reasons, and wouldn't go back down in res for gaming now. Difference is huge as you can clearly see in beany_bots great screenshot.
 
Man. I used to spend serious cash getting quake2 to run at 120fps on CRT.

Never again. I think 60fps looks good these days but know if I saw one of these 144hz monitors I'd never be able to go back :D
 
IMO, If anyone is using anything above medium settings at 4K then they're idiots. Completely unnecessary and then you're wondering why 4K is so graphically taxing.

At 1080 or 1440 trying high/ultra settings will improve detail, but at 4K res even on the lowest setting it's still fantastic to look at. Anything above 60Hz is pointless to me too.

Unless you're a geek into online FPS's, any old 4K monitor at 60Hz should be good enough.
 
BluesFanUK said:
IMO, If anyone is using anything above medium settings at 4K then they're idiots. Completely unnecessary and then you're wondering why 4K is so graphically taxing.

At 1080 or 1440 trying high/ultra settings will improve detail, but at 4K res even on the lowest setting it's still fantastic to look at. Anything above 60Hz is pointless to me too.

Unless you're a geek into online FPS's, any old 4K monitor at 60Hz should be good enough.
Click to expand...

I'm an idiot for using Ultra settings at 4k? But I get locked 60fps...Why wouldn't I use it.

The only think I don't have right up is MSAA usually. I tend to stay with MSAA 2x.
 
I have always liked the sharpness afforded by a higher resolution but I think it depends on size of the monitor as well (and distance to it). 1080p on my old 22" Viewsonic looks plenty sharp for example.

4K on my 28" looks amazingly sharp but too taxing for my 970s in all honesty and I have been much happier since picking up my 144Hz GSync 1440p screen in December.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom