• 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?

I use a 3440 x 1440 100hz panel, G-Sync and all that Jazz. Similarly I also have a 4k TV with a HTPC hooked up to it. Both are great experiences depending on the game. For games like Assasins creed or Witcher 3, if I set and hold a stable 60FPS so it feels smooth, the games can and do look amazing on a large screen, more so with HDR on the TV that I will prefer sitting down in front of the TV then my monitor even with higher refresh rate + G-Sync. Recently put 100+ hours in on the TV with Assasins creed Odyssey and it was amazing.

On a smaller 4k screen however, that may change things however and its largely the TV's screen size that partially makes it attractive, the high PPI on a 27" panel however at 4k will likely not make as much of an impact for me personally and at that point imagine PPI on normal 34" 3440 x 1440 panel is good enough.
 
To further add to the debate; and this is pretty much just anecdotal evidence based on observations in the Monitors section of the forum.
Of the OcUK community, so mainly enthusiasts (might not represent average joe), more people seem to have switched from 4k to 21:9 than the other way around.
 
Whether people use 2160p or wide screen should be down to the type of games they play as neither setup does everything the best.
 
Howling said:
To further add to the debate; and this is pretty much just anecdotal evidence based on observations in the Monitors section of the forum.
Of the OcUK community, so mainly enthusiasts (might not represent average joe), more people seem to have switched from 4k to 21:9 than the other way around.
Click to expand...
What exactly are you trying to say/achieve here with this comment? I can only think of one thing, but fear if I say it you are going to say that's not what you meant :p;)


Kaapstad said:
Whether people use 2160p or wide screen should be down to the type of games they play as neither setup does everything the best.
Click to expand...
+1 :)
 
TNA said:
What exactly are you trying to say here with this comment? I can only think of one thing, but fear if I say it you are going to say that's not what you meant :p;)
Click to expand...

Trying to say that anecdotal evidence of a small sample size of enthusiasts suggests gaming on 21:9 is a better experience than 3840x2160 ;)
 
Howling said:
Trying to say that anecdotal evidence of a small sample size of enthusiasts suggests gaming on 21:9 is a better experience than 3840x2160 ;)
Click to expand...
Thought as much. Pretty much proves my suspicion and I can now see why you took issue with my post. You have this notion of one is better than the other and struggle to comprehend that it is a subjective thing as there is no one best monitor.

What is not subjective however was my point, 4K and higher PPI equals better image quality and if to some people (such as his nephew potentially) that is more important than aspect ratio (or hz), then to them your statement holds untrue and vice versa obviously.

You need to look up what objective thrusts and personal truths are and understand the difference perhaps ;)
 
Howling said:
Trying to say that anecdotal evidence of a small sample size of enthusiasts suggests gaming on 21:9 is a better experience than 3840x2160 ;)
Click to expand...

That's a big assumption to make. The demands of 4K are easily underestimated... you're looking at just under 5m pixels at 3440x1440 vs over 8.3m at 4K. That's a near 70% increase!! A lot of people won't appreciate how much harder that is to drive, so it's quite reasonable to assume that many of those who've moved from 4K to 1440p have done so simply to achieve higher frame rates on a higher refresh monitor, which their existing GPU couldn't manage. I've even seen some users stumped as to why their 4K monitors don't go above 60Hz... it's almost unbelievable someone wouldn't research this before buying, but clearly that does happen.

So no, it would be wrong to automatically assume that anyone moving to 21:9 from 4K is doing so because it's "better", when there's a good chance they are doing so because they basically have no choice and had no idea what they were getting in to with 4K in the first place.
 
TNA said:
Thought as much. Pretty much proves my suspicion and I can now see why you took issue with my post. You have this notion of one is better than the other and struggle to comprehend that it is a subjective thing as there is no one best monitor.

What is not subjective however was my point, 4K and higher PPI equals better image quality and if to some people (such as his nephew potentially) that is more important than aspect ratio (or hz), then to them your statement holds untrue and vice versa obviously.

You need to look up what objective thrusts and personal truths are and understand the difference perhaps ;)
Click to expand...

You're making a lot of assumptions. Firstly that I took issue with your post - I only took issue with you misrepresenting or misunderstanding mine. I not only don't have issue with your sentiment that 4k provides the greater IQ, but I even hold the same opinion and posted as such. The second assumption is that you seem to not understand that subjective observations can be extrapolated upon to provide useful insight - I believe I was cautious enough to provide the context of the statement so it would not be misunderstood to be some sort of universal truth. Thirdly, that I don't know the differences between objectivity and subjectivity - which unfortunately is not true as I have a friend who is under the delusion that he's some great philosopher and is constantly debating... everybody... all the time....
 
Legend said:
That's a big assumption to make. The demands of 4K are easily underestimated... you're looking at just under 5m pixels at 3440x1440 vs over 8.3m at 4K. That's a near 70% increase!! A lot of people won't appreciate how much harder that is to drive, so it's quite reasonable to assume that many of those who've moved from 4K to 1440p have done so simply to achieve higher frame rates on a higher refresh monitor, which their existing GPU couldn't manage. I've seen some users stumped as to why their 4K monitors don't go above 60Hz... it's almost unbelievable somneone wouldn't reserach this before buying, but clearly this does happen.

So no, it would be wrong to automatically assume that anyone moving to 21:9 from 4K is doing so because it's "better", when there's a good chance they are doing so because they basically have no choice and had no idea what they were getting in to with 4K in the first place.
Click to expand...

You sort of make a good point (however "big" assumption is a stretch) in that the factor could well be GPU power induced - but then go on to make the assumption that they moved from 4k to Ultrawide because they're idiots who do no research? That seems to be the bigger assumption, especially given the sample is of PC enthusiasts. Not only that, my anecdote was tempered by the statements made by the people about their reasoning - not just the sheer numbers. Granted, I didn't state that - but I didn't expect anyone to attempt your counter argument. Failure on my part to not clarify even more than I already did.
 
Howling said:
Trying to say that anecdotal evidence of a small sample size of enthusiasts suggests gaming on 21:9 is a better experience than 3840x2160 ;)
Click to expand...

As far as I know our vision is closer to 16:9 or 16:10 than to 21:9. 21:9 to taken stupidly from some working conditions where two displays next to each other are necessary for higher working efficiency. But it has nothing to do with our natural vision.
 
Howling said:
You're making a lot of assumptions. Firstly that I took issue with your post - I only took issue with you misrepresenting or misunderstanding mine. I not only don't have issue with your sentiment that 4k provides the greater IQ, but I even hold the same opinion and posted as such. The second assumption is that you seem to not understand that subjective observations can be extrapolated upon to provide useful insight - I believe I was cautious enough to provide the context of the statement so it would not be misunderstood to be some sort of universal truth. Thirdly, that I don't know the differences between objectivity and subjectivity - which unfortunately is not true as I have a friend who is under the delusion that he's some great philosopher and is constantly debating... everybody... all the time....
Click to expand...

I am not the one taking a small sample size and using anecdotal evidence to suggest UW is a superior gaming experience. Lol mate :p
 
4K8KW10 said:
As far as I know our vision is closer to 16:9 or 16:10 than to 21:9. 21:9 to taken stupidly from some working conditions where two displays next to each other are necessary for higher working efficiency. But it has nothing to do with our natural vision.
Click to expand...

Our vision is closer to 4:3 than 16:9 - does that mean you're an idiot for preferring 16:9?
 
TNA said:
I am not the one taking a small sample size and using anecdotal evidence to suggest UW is a superior gaming experience. Lol mate :p
Click to expand...

That's why all the limitations were stated :) Not made to define the conclusion, but as information to be used to form the end conclusion. Really reaching there now bud.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom