Why do people chase 4K gaming?

[olliej82]

Had ultrawide acer x34 but once I got a 4k oled TV and tried the pc on that there was no going back.

 

[Rannoch]

Good thread as I’m contemplating going 4K or 1440.

 

[Lokken86]

I just want a 1440p, 144hz freesync monitor and that will be me sorted.

 

[easyrider]

Had ultrawide acer x34 but once I got a 4k oled TV and tried the pc on that there was no going back.

How does that work with Keyboard and mouse in twitch shooters?

 

[Quartz]

Ive seen it and played and will always prefer Ultrawide 3440 x 1440p 100hz plus over standard 16:9 4K 60hz

Some games play better at 4K; other games play better at UW. And I don't mean frame rates. I find that Command & Conquer 3, for instance, is noticeably better at 4K, as are Borderlands 2 and Far Cry (the original). Doom is better at 3440x1440. YMMV

 

[Howling]

People chase 4k because 4k gets marketed and hyped in the main stream. That's it. I can understand people preferring 16:9 over 21:9 (well, I can't - but I'll accept people being wrong sometimes ) but they'd be much better suited with 1440p144hz. I was an early 4k adopter and was not impressed by it.

 

[gpuerrilla]

I just want a 1440p, 144hz freesync monitor and that will be me sorted.

+me.

 

[olliej82]

How does that work with Keyboard and mouse in twitch shooters?

I have a roccat sova lapboard, it works really well. Obviously I'm stuck at 60hz but I'm not into proper competitive fps just casual battlefield now and again

 

[easyrider]

I have a roccat sova lapboard, it works really well. Obviously I'm stuck at 60hz but I'm not into proper competitive fps just casual battlefield now and again

Seems odd that and i just wouldnt find it immersive...I need my Ultrawide and headphones!

 

[olliej82]

A 55" screen is pretty immersive! Also have a rift when I want to be totally immersed

 

[Kelt]

I'm definitely on the UW side...not tried 4K so can't comment on it, but I know I never want to go back to 16:9, UW is just so much more immersive.

 

[Gerard]

I'm definitely on the UW side...not tried 4K so can't comment on it, but I know I never want to go back to 16:9, UW is just so much more immersive.

And eyefinity\surround even more so, if you have used one of those setups for a while then switch to ultrawide it makes ultrawide kinda meh.

 

[Quartz]

I have both and both have their place.

 

[TNA]

Ive seen it and played and will always prefer Ultrawide 3440 x 1440p 100hz plus over standard 16:9 4K 60hz

Have you had Ultrawide 2k 100hz and then gone to 4K ?

I’m genuinely interested as my nephew is wanting a new monitor for Christmas and he’s been spellbound by the 4K marketing...when in fact I think he’ll enjoy gaming on Ultrawide more..

He’s seen my setup and played Doom on my X34 but he’s still going on about 4K....

Depends. If he prefers image quality and not much into FPS games, then for sure the 4K. Otherwise go UW so you get 100hz at least.

I don't see the point personally. Does 4K really improve the gaming experience? Personally I could quite happily game at 1080P on a 24". Actually used to have a 1200P, pity don't make them anymore .
Buying a 4K monitor requires serious hardware still and will do for some time to come. Spending say £1k on the monitor I'd expect to have to pay £2k on GPU(s) to drive it properly (especially 3D shooters) with current tech, IMO, to allow maxing of settings in most games. Gaming at 4K and dropping settings kind of defeats the point to me. And we're paying for all the eye candy to be put in games too .

I use two monitors so one 27" 1440P g-sync and one 24" flipped vertically is my desk setup - a multi-purpose workstation.

If image quality improves gaming experience then absolutely yes! Everything looks clearer and sharper. The difference is night and day to my eyes, like putting on glasses one might say. I used to find it puzzling how some could not see this personally, that is one of the reasons why I landed on monitors being a subjective thing.

People chase 4k because 4k gets marketed and hyped in the main stream. That's it. I can understand people preferring 16:9 over 21:9 (well, I can't - but I'll accept people being wrong sometimes ) but they'd be much better suited with 1440p144hz. I was an early 4k adopter and was not impressed by it.

I have had it for 4 years now and been impressed, so much so I can’t go back. Wish I could, would get more fps and save money on upgrades. But just I love the sharpness and IQ of 4K. High PPI really helps.

The two games I last played are Final Fantasy 15 and Witcher 3. My 4K monitor is calibrated and the IQ much better than 1440p. Plus with 4K in many games you can get away with no AA which means even superior image quality. No Vaseline effect which people using lower resolutions have to put up with.

I have both and both have their place.

Agreed.

 

[Quartz]

But just I love the sharpness and IQ of 4K. High PPI really helps.

<snip>

My 4K monitor is calibrated and the IQ much better than 1440p. Plus with 4K in many games you can get away with no AA which means even superior image quality. No Vaseline effect which people using lower resolutions have to put up with.

Both of these are very true.

 

[TNA]

Both of these are very true.

What I would like for my next monitor in 2-3 years time would be a 4K Freesync 2/G-Sync 144hz MicroLED monitor with proper HDR. Might even go ultrawide if StarCitizen is out by then

Used to want OLED, but really don’t think that is coming to monitors. MicroLED hits the high end tv market next year as i understand it, so should be on monitors in 2-3 years time hopefully.

 

[4K8KW10]

Playing games at a solid 60fps and a mind-boggling 8K resolution is possible today, we don’t have to wait for the future to do it. But I wouldn’t advise it as a thing to pursue yet: I did my testing with a $1,200 graphics card, and maxing out the GTA V graphics settings took me past the 12GB of video RAM on that card. That’s all kinds of ridiculous. Yes, I feel special being one of only a few people on the planet playing PC games at 8K

Dell’s 8K monitor is stunningly ahead of its time https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/12/16293326/dell-8k-monitor-review-ultrasharp-up3218k

 

[easyrider]

A 55" screen is pretty immersive! Also have a rift when I want to be totally immersed

I cant even watch movies on a 55" TV ,my projector screen is 120"

 

[easyrider]

Depends. If he prefers image quality and not much into FPS games, then for sure the 4K. Otherwise go UW so you get 100hz at least.




If image quality improves gaming experience then absolutely yes! Everything looks clearer and sharper. The difference is night and day to my eyes, like putting on glasses one might say. I used to find it puzzling how some could not see this personally, that is one of the reasons why I landed on monitors being a subjective thing.




I have had it for 4 years now and been impressed, so much so I can’t go back. Wish I could, would get more fps and save money on upgrades. But just I love the sharpness and IQ of 4K. High PPI really helps.

The two games I last played are Final Fantasy 15 and Witcher 3. My 4K monitor is calibrated and the IQ much better than 1440p. Plus with 4K in many games you can get away with no AA which means even superior image quality. No Vaseline effect which people using lower resolutions have to put up with.



Agreed.

not a dig....btw

 

[HRL]

I’d say 4K gaming on a 27” monitor is dumb, not 4K gaming itself.

It’s pretty tricky to even spot the difference at that size but on a 40”+ monitor or TV, the visual clarity is much more evident and anyone that says they can’t see the difference is either lying or has poor eyesight.

Sure, in an ideal world I’d love a 240Hz 4K display if one is available, but currently it’s beyond daft to try and hit those frame rates unless money is absolutely no object.