-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Why do people chase 4K gaming?
- Thread starter easyrider
- Start date
Caporegime
A dig? If you objectively watch that video he confirms everything I have said and have ever been saying. Lol.
I don’t competitively game, hell I barely game with fps games at all. Also notice how Linus was a little bias when testing and used doom and people still struggled to tell the difference in smoothness? If he was trying to be objective he would have also tried Final Fantasy 15 and Witcher 3 and I bet those guys would have said **** the others, this monitor just looks way better.
As I said, if your nephew prefers image quality and not much into FPS games, then for sure the 4K. It just looks better.
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.
Wrong. Higher PPI means better image quality.
All this talk is funny, as people made similar arguments when we used to be on lower resolutions and there were many that said no need for higher resolution due to xx. But here we are, no one uses those silly low resolutions now.
End of the day everyone can game at whatever resolution or hz they want. But don’t try and tell me I am using it because of marketing. I have had these side by side. There is no contest between 1080p and 4K. Yet some say no big difference. There is a very easy to spot difference between 1440p and 4K, yet some say they cannot see. It is either bias/agenda, or we all just perceive things slightly differently as me and others who can clearly see the difference in higher PPI.
Associate
Most people might mention their monitor resolution but not its size and thus you have no idea of their PPI; how important the PPI (and screen size) is depends on your viewing distance. Image quality depends on that as well, as does proper calibration, monitor technology, etc (never again a TN, not even a "good" TN since side by side they are still rubbish compared to IPS).
As to my preference, 3440x1440 34" is great and beats everything else I've seen so far for gaming (no competitive shooters for me). For productivity I'd actually want 4K at a similar PPI to my ultrawide, would end up being quite a large monitor as I would still like more vertical pixels ... would help with flight sims too when not using VR.
As to my preference, 3440x1440 34" is great and beats everything else I've seen so far for gaming (no competitive shooters for me). For productivity I'd actually want 4K at a similar PPI to my ultrawide, would end up being quite a large monitor as I would still like more vertical pixels ... would help with flight sims too when not using VR.
Soldato
I’d probably agree with some here.
I’ve had 4k 60, 1440p 165hz, 21:9 3440x1440 100+120hz. Always gone back to 1440 165hz purely on my preferences. 21:9 just feels odd, doesn’t really add much in terms of immersion in my opinion and too letterboxy for me.
Mainly use my monitor for fps games now and I still prefer 165hz over everything I own.
All other RPG and controller based games go on my 55” OLED which is amazing to game on.
Although I can see why people chase 4k. It does look a fair bit better than 1440 even at a lower screen size of 27”. Just looks a lot crisper and sharper. As someone said before “like putting glasses on”. 60hz is the only downfall unless you have the money and gpu power to drive the 144hz ones.
I’ve had 4k 60, 1440p 165hz, 21:9 3440x1440 100+120hz. Always gone back to 1440 165hz purely on my preferences. 21:9 just feels odd, doesn’t really add much in terms of immersion in my opinion and too letterboxy for me.
Mainly use my monitor for fps games now and I still prefer 165hz over everything I own.
All other RPG and controller based games go on my 55” OLED which is amazing to game on.
Although I can see why people chase 4k. It does look a fair bit better than 1440 even at a lower screen size of 27”. Just looks a lot crisper and sharper. As someone said before “like putting glasses on”. 60hz is the only downfall unless you have the money and gpu power to drive the 144hz ones.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2010
- Posts
- 3,034
I like both formats for different games, although if I had to choose one it would be the 21:9 ultrawide.
TL;DR -
1440p144+ if he's an FPS gamer and/or doesn't have the GPU grunt for 4k - though I suspect if 144fps is managed at 1440 then 60 at 4k is in range.
1440p100+ Ultrawide if he's awesome - pretty much works with all games - stunning on stuff like Witcher and surprisingly Elite Dangerous etc. , though admittedly some games (usually FPS) crop your vertical so you actually lose vision.
4k@60 If he doesn't play FPS / twitch based games, and somehow doesn't like 21:9 ratio. Witcher 3 and DA:I did look admittedly good at 4k, noticeably better than 1440p did - but definitely didn't match my 21:9.
4k@100+ If he has the GPU grunt, best of the 16:9 choices by far
Totally not biased towards 21:9
But answering why people "chase" 4k -- it's largely marketing. Most of the people that chase 4k can't power it - but 4k has the advantage of being the next industry standard in TVs so 4k is what the average consumer will hear.
1440p144+ if he's an FPS gamer and/or doesn't have the GPU grunt for 4k - though I suspect if 144fps is managed at 1440 then 60 at 4k is in range.
1440p100+ Ultrawide if he's awesome - pretty much works with all games - stunning on stuff like Witcher and surprisingly Elite Dangerous etc. , though admittedly some games (usually FPS) crop your vertical so you actually lose vision.
4k@60 If he doesn't play FPS / twitch based games, and somehow doesn't like 21:9 ratio. Witcher 3 and DA:I did look admittedly good at 4k, noticeably better than 1440p did - but definitely didn't match my 21:9.
4k@100+ If he has the GPU grunt, best of the 16:9 choices by far
Totally not biased towards 21:9
But answering why people "chase" 4k -- it's largely marketing. Most of the people that chase 4k can't power it - but 4k has the advantage of being the next industry standard in TVs so 4k is what the average consumer will hear.
Caporegime
Got to say I am surprised the closed-mindedness displayed by you Howling.TL;DR -
1440p144+ if he's an FPS gamer and/or doesn't have the GPU grunt for 4k - though I suspect if 144fps is managed at 1440 then 60 at 4k is in range.
1440p100+ Ultrawide if he's awesome - pretty much works with all games - stunning on stuff like Witcher and surprisingly Elite Dangerous etc. , though admittedly some games (usually FPS) crop your vertical so you actually lose vision.
4k@60 If he doesn't play FPS / twitch based games, and somehow doesn't like 21:9 ratio. Witcher 3 and DA:I did look admittedly good at 4k, noticeably better than 1440p did - but definitely didn't match my 21:9.
4k@100+ If he has the GPU grunt, best of the 16:9 choices by far
Totally not biased towards 21:9
But answering why people "chase" 4k -- it's largely marketing. Most of the people that chase 4k can't power it - but 4k has the advantage of being the next industry standard in TVs so 4k is what the average consumer will hear.
Not only have I explained that 4K image quality being better (no one disputed what I said), not only have others confirmed this, but worse you even said yourself that it is noticeably better than 1440p, yet somehow you conclude it is largely marketing? lol.
Even worse after admitting 4K having noticeably better image quality compared to 1440p, you then go on to say it did not match your 21:9. That makes no sense assuming you have a 1440p ultrawide which means same image quality as 1440p just wider. So much bias being displayed here.
I personally think 4k isn't marketing at all. Just go watch Dunkirk in 4k on a oled and tell me its just marketing with a straight face. Also Forza Horizon 4 is a good example of how good 4k with HDR can look. It all depends how well a game has been mastered to look in 4k.
Resident Evil 7 is another game that has good 4k visuals especially with HDR.
Resident Evil 7 is another game that has good 4k visuals especially with HDR.
Your bias is stopping you from reading what I actually put. That's fine, you weren't the one asking for input I guess - but I will elaborate. Someone like yourself, a PC enthusiast, will choose 4k for reasons like you, and I, have mentioned. "People" will chase it not through knowledge of the benefits and requirements, but because it is marketed to them so heavily. You made an informed decision, the average consumer will not. There may well be a better option for them depending on their needs and factors like GPU power - but they'll only see 4K as the option.
21:9 is a different experience to 16:9. 4k has higher IQ than 1440p, but 21:9 provides a more pleasing experience. The aspect ratio more than compensates for the IQ drop. Yes, there is bias - I prefer 21:9, but I at least acknowledge the pros and cons of both sides.
Caporegime
Sorry but that is a load of rubbish.
Here is your previous post here:
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
Also this thread is to answer a question another enthusiast is asking. Not to a mainstream member. So not sure the relevance of what you are saying. Just does not add up.
Also how am I being biased? my advice to the question was if he does not play much fps games and prefers image quality then go 4K. Where is the bias in that? I have never told someone who plays competitive fps that 4K 60hz is more suitable for them, that would make zero sense.
Soldato
You're completely ignoring the FPS benefit that 4k can't provide. 60Hz is not for me.
Caporegime
Show me where I am doing this? I must be missing something?
But I am not trying to convince you am I? What is this straw-man business going on here. All I recall saying 4K has better image quality. If one does not play fps games much and likes image quality get 4K.
Again, "PEOPLE". Not you. Enthusiasts are a far cry from the average consumer.
Your bias is ignoring 21:9 and attacking EVERY opinion that doesn't match your own. Even my own opinion, where I literally agree with you on 4k uses, was attacked because I didn't put 4k above Ultrawide.
I'd suggest you go have a calming tea and relax for a few hours, then come back to the thread.
Caporegime
Attacking? Where?
PEOPLE? The topic here is his nephew and giving him the best advice and a conversation among what I assume to be enthusiasts. What does the average joe consumer got to do with anything? Again straw man.
Caporegime
Fair enough, though he also asked about his nephew which I gave a fair and balance reply to. Please show me where I attacked anyone?
My position has been the same throughout this thread. Whereas you admit 4K image quality is better than 1440p, then go on to say it is a marketing gimmick. That makes no sense to me.
Soldato
I quoted your complete post, because that's what I was referring to.
Caporegime
Did you happen to read what I was replying to? Was there anywhere a debate where I ignored fps benefits? Nope. So don't get what you are saying.
Context, makes a big difference. Here you go, my answer to OP:
Because I differentiate between the average and the enthusiast/informed, I thought my post where I put in my arguments for different resolutions would have inferred that.
Just from this quote alone, you can see that I caveat each option with the type of person I think it would be best suited to. This option is best IF this is true. Then I make a generalised statement, and even clarify "average consumer" to make this clear.
You seem to be attempting to dismiss my arguments because my generalised statement is at odds with my caveated statement, while ignoring the fact that one is a generalised statement and one has the caveat.
TL;DR -
1440p144+ if he's an FPS gamer and/or doesn't have the GPU grunt for 4k - though I suspect if 144fps is managed at 1440 then 60 at 4k is in range.
1440p100+ Ultrawide if he's awesome - pretty much works with all games - stunning on stuff like Witcher and surprisingly Elite Dangerous etc. , though admittedly some games (usually FPS) crop your vertical so you actually lose vision.
4k@60 If he doesn't play FPS / twitch based games, and somehow doesn't like 21:9 ratio. Witcher 3 and DA:I did look admittedly good at 4k, noticeably better than 1440p did - but definitely didn't match my 21:9.
4k@100+ If he has the GPU grunt, best of the 16:9 choices by far
Totally not biased towards 21:9
But answering why people "chase" 4k -- it's largely marketing. Most of the people that chase 4k can't power it - but 4k has the advantage of being the next industry standard in TVs so 4k is what the average consumer will hear.
Just from this quote alone, you can see that I caveat each option with the type of person I think it would be best suited to. This option is best IF this is true. Then I make a generalised statement, and even clarify "average consumer" to make this clear.
You seem to be attempting to dismiss my arguments because my generalised statement is at odds with my caveated statement, while ignoring the fact that one is a generalised statement and one has the caveat.