Why do people chase 4K gaming?

[HRL]

Math isn't opinion. The 1+1=3 example is really no different to what's being said here about PPI. More pixels in any given area create a sharper and more detailed image. This is just scientific and mathmatical fact, there is no opinion about it.

Of course, there is no certainty the human eye will always see it... the difference in PPI obviously factors in and it's extremely unlikely that anyone would notice the difference between, let's say for example, 60 and 70ppi. A 27" 1440p monitor with 109ppi vs a 27" 4K monitor with 163ppi however... if someone can't see the difference there then there is something wrong with their vision.

Image quality doesn't mean all that much to everyone though, and obviously we game in motion, and the fluidity and smoothness of that motion is essential to the experience. Also, some people are far more sensitive to motion speed than others, which is why a 60Hz monitor to one person is more than adequate, while to another it's abominable and virtually unplayable. This is all separate to the point though... higher PPI will always equate to sharper and more detailed imagery. The only 'opinion' that enters in to that is whether it's important to someone or not and how much it effects their gaming experience... that's entirely subjective.

What I actually implied was it’s harder to see the difference on a 27” monitor, less so on a 40”+. I wasn’t even disagreeing about PPI.

Everyone’s a bit touchy in here today!

 

[ALXAndy]

Because it's the highest, universally accepted resolution where you will have 0 game issues at all, and get a good pixel density for sitting up close to when gaming on a PC.

I play mainly Fallout in some shape or form and stretching it not only makes it look like ass but also creates issues with the consoles (crashing and freezing causing you to have to reload your save game) and etc.

I've bought into several cool ideas in the past and found they were all a waste of cash because I had more day 1 issues with games than any one else. IE I could not play them, which really sucks. Same goes for VR, 3Dvision and multiple GPUs. I stay away from all of it now, as they will happily take that cash from you knowing you won't get the best fighting chance at playing a game properly if at all.

 

[TNA]

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.

I reply to your post which attempts conclude that UW is better using inadequate data size after it is made clear that it is subjective and I am the one reaching? Bloody hell mate

 

[Legend]

What I actually implied was it’s harder to see the difference on a 27” monitor, less so on a 40”+. I wasn’t even disagreeing about PPI.

Everyone’s a bit touchy in here today!

Harder to see the difference between a 27" 1440p monitor vs a 27" 4K one? If you have 20/20 vision, the difference is night and day... if we're just talking about image detail/sharpness. I am not speaking to the overall gaming experience, which becomes far more complex when you add the motion element and refresh rate preference, which as I mentioned is something that an individual's sensitivity to can vary significantly. Obviously this is what ultimately matters for many gamers, who don't use a monitor to stare at static images all day. But in that sense, there would no argument a graphic designer/photographer would choose 4K for that very reason (in addition to colour accuracy of course). There are some gamers who do really value that image detail in gaming though, especially in games where the 60Hz limitation isn't an issue, and they are not so sensitive to it.

 

[Howling]

I reply to your post which attempts conclude that UW is better using inadequate data size after it is made clear that it is subjective and I am the one reaching? Bloody hell mate

I didn't try to conclude anything. I provided some anecdotal evidence, you asked what it was saying or something, I said it suggests UW is better. I never said it proves UW is better. The statement was solely in reference to that piece of evidence, in which I at multiple times stated the limitations of it.

I even attempted, from the first time you took issue with something I said, to state limitations and caveat things so it was clear what was being said - but on every turn you attempt to misrepresent in order to dismiss. I don't get it. There's only so far I can clarify without defining every word using the OED in every post so that nothing can be misconstrued - and even then, somehow, I suspect you'll attempt it.

 

[bigmike20vt]

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....

I game on 65 inch TV. For me far better than any momitor..... QHD is great and a nice compromise however the lag on my TV on anything other than native 4k is not great..... That is why I aim for 4k.
Whilst 4k improvement over QHD is subtle it is so much better than 1080p.
HDR however eclipses resolution imo

 

[Legend]

I didn't try to conclude anything. I provided some anecdotal evidence, you asked what it was saying or something, I said it suggests UW is better. I never said it proves UW is better. The statement was solely in reference to that piece of evidence, in which I at multiple times stated the limitations of it.

I even attempted, from the first time you took issue with something I said, to state limitations and caveat things so it was clear what was being said - but on every turn you attempt to misrepresent in order to dismiss. I don't get it. There's only so far I can clarify without defining every word using the OED in every post so that nothing can be misconstrued - and even then, somehow, I suspect you'll attempt it.

The problem is the use of the word "better"... that's an ENTIRELY subjective word. Better to one person might be 120/144Hz and getting as close to that frame rate as possible in games. For that person, there is no question 4K won't satisfy and a 1440p monitor will be 'best', even if they have a 2080Ti. For someone who values image detail/sharpness over all else, especially if they play games where refresh rate isn't a hinderence (no fast twitch shooters etc.), then 4K is going to be 'best' for them. No one is right, no one is wrong.

That said, there are certain unalienable facts... 4K LOOKS sharper and with greater image detail due to higher PPI. 1440p/UW (on a 100Hz+ monitor) will run at higher frame rates and offer a smoother gameplaying experience (and require less expensive hardware to achieve that). It's all a matter of preference at the end of the day, and what gives you the most satisfaction.

The HDR argument is an interesting one, but as its execution on PC at the moment is rather abysmal, it's not really a factor that comes in to play very often. That might change in the future however.

There is also RTX to consider... ray tracing will (eventually, perhaps not this generation though) provide us with far more realistic gaming environments, reflections, lighting etc. This may come to eclipse resolution to some extent in terms of creating a far more immersive, believable and realistic gameplay world.

 

[Quartz]

Whether people use 2160p or wide screen should be down to the type of games they play as neither setup does everything the best.

But you play at 8K, don't you?

 

[Howling]

The problem is the use of the word "better"... that's an ENTIRELY subjective word. Better to one person might be 120/144Hz and getting as close to that frame rate as possible in games. For that person, there is no question 4K won't satisfy and a 1440p monitor will be 'best', even if they have a 2080Ti. For someone who values image detail/sharpness over all else, especially if they play games where refresh rate isn't a hinderence (no fast twitch shooters etc.), then 4K is going to be 'best' for them. No one is right, no one is wrong.

That said, there are certain unalienable facts... 4K LOOKS sharper and with greater image detail due to higher PPI. 1440p/UW (on a 100Hz+ monitor) will run at higher frame rates and offer a smoother gameplaying experience (and require less expensive hardware to achieve that). It's all a matter of preference at the end of the day, and what gives you the most satisfaction.

The HDR argument is an interesting one, but as its execution on PC at the moment is rather abysmal, it's not really a factor that comes in to play very often. That might change in the future however.

There is also RTX to consider... ray tracing will (eventually, perhaps not this generation though) provide us with far more realistic gaming environments, reflections, lighting etc. This may come to eclipse resolution to some extent in terms of creating a far more immersive, believable and realistic gameplay world.

Perhaps "better" could have been replaced a more appropriate word, however, I get the feeling no matter what word was used - there'd have been some form of issue. I believe in previous posts I've already expressed that different people have different needs and thus the choice of which is best for them will differ.

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

My anecdotal evidence was just something I thought worth adding, as Easy is himself part of the UltraWide user base and takes part in the Monitors discussions as well, it holds, perhaps added, relevancy.

As a side note: I'm also kind of looking forward to BFG displays appearing (hopefully at a semi-reasonable price).

 

[Bluntwrapped]

3440x1440 here at 60hz. Until OLED is viable I’m not really interested in anything else. £1000 + cost of GPU to play a handful of mediocre games at 100hz? No thanks lol.

 

[Howling]

3440x1440 here at 60hz. Until OLED is viable I’m not really interested in anything else. £1000 + cost of GPU to play a handful of mediocre games at 100hz? No thanks lol.

The issue with OLED is burn in, which will affect gamers more than the average user due to HUD elements, and it's something I don't see being fixed. Couple of long game sessions and that's your expensive panel ruined. Doesn't seem like a viable tech for us unfortunately.

 

[Legend]

3440x1440 here at 60hz. Until OLED is viable I’m not really interested in anything else. £1000 + cost of GPU to play a handful of mediocre games at 100hz? No thanks lol.

Forget that, OLED will never be viable. Burn-in is inherent to the tech and there is no indication this will ever be fixed. MicroLED offers the same benefits and none of the drawbacks, and in the long run it will be cheaper to produce. It will be years before we see high end MicroLED PC monitors however.

 

[Kaapstad]

But you play at 8K, don't you?

4k for gaming.

8k is just for fun benching.

 

[tyler_jrb]

The issue with OLED is burn in, which will affect gamers more than the average user due to HUD elements, and it's something I don't see being fixed. Couple of long game sessions and that's your expensive panel ruined. Doesn't seem like a viable tech for us unfortunately.

The issue with OLED is burn in, which will affect gamers more than the average user due to HUD elements, and it's something I don't see being fixed. Couple of long game sessions and that's your expensive panel ruined. Doesn't seem like a viable tech for us unfortunately.

I've had my older B7 for well over a year with daily usage on games. Many hdr games with max brightness and bright hud's for several hours at a time and never had an issue with burn or IR. Probably talking 500hrs of gaming on that panel at high brightness.

Sure its a possibily but from my experience if you vary your content. Some TV, some movies, some games. It hasn't been an issue and has been just amazing for games and tv/movies. I've tried QLED and sony 55" and neither come close.

I'm interested in seeing MLED when that comes out and how it compares. However yes will be some years before we see MLED on monitors for sure as i know they are struggling with 55/65" displays as it is.

 

[TNA]

I didn't try to conclude anything. I provided some anecdotal evidence, you asked what it was saying or something, I said it suggests UW is better. I never said it proves UW is better. The statement was solely in reference to that piece of evidence, in which I at multiple times stated the limitations of it.

I even attempted, from the first time you took issue with something I said, to state limitations and caveat things so it was clear what was being said - but on every turn you attempt to misrepresent in order to dismiss. I don't get it. There's only so far I can clarify without defining every word using the OED in every post so that nothing can be misconstrued - and even then, somehow, I suspect you'll attempt it.

What was the point of that anecdotal evidence you tried to provide though? Why did you feel the need after our debate to make such point right at the end? Surely you had a reason?

I am not trying to dismiss what you are saying, I am saying I do not understand why you are trying to make it after such debate, other than to say UW is better, therefore you are right and I am wrong. What other purpose does it serve due to the timing of the comment?

Anyway. Does not even matter, we are going around in circles here You think UW monitors even if lower resolution are better than 4K and high IQ, I am saying there is no one best and it is all subjective due to many reasons

 

[Howling]

What was the point of that anecdotal evidence you tried to provide though? Why did you feel the need after our debate to make such point right at the end? Surely you had a reason?

I am not trying to dismiss what you are saying, I am saying I do not understand why you are trying to make it after such debate, other than to say UW is better, therefore you are right and I am wrong. What other purpose does it serve due to the timing of the comment?

It has nothing to do with our "debate" - it was for Easy. As I once had to learn, not everything revolves around me

Anyway. Does not even matter, we are going around in circles here You think UW monitors even if lower resolution are better than 4K and high IQ, I am saying there is no one best and it is all subjective due to many reasons

And no, I don't think UW are better than 4k - it depends on circumstance, as my previous post stated. The one that you took issue with I also said there is no single best and it's all subjective - hence each caveat.

 

[TNA]

It has nothing to do with our "debate" - it was for Easy. As I once had to learn, not everything revolves around me

Aw Howling brother, I could go on by pointing out that you clear said "To further add to the debate" in that post, etc etc. But I am sure @easyrider has run out of popcorn by now and had his fill

And no, I don't think UW are better than 4k - it depends on circumstance

At least we agree in the end

 

[Howling]

Aw Howling brother, I could go on by pointing out that you clear said "To further add to the debate" in that post, etc etc. But I am sure @easyrider has run out of popcorn by now and had his fill



At least we agree in the end

"The debate" was inclusive of the entire thread.

And we agreed from the start, you just refused to see it.

 

[HRL]

Harder to see the difference between a 27" 1440p monitor vs a 27" 4K one? If you have 20/20 vision, the difference is night and day... if we're just talking about image detail/sharpness. I am not speaking to the overall gaming experience, which becomes far more complex when you add the motion element and refresh rate preference, which as I mentioned is something that an individual's sensitivity to can vary significantly. Obviously this is what ultimately matters for many gamers, who don't use a monitor to stare at static images all day. But in that sense, there would no argument a graphic designer/photographer would choose 4K for that very reason (in addition to colour accuracy of course). There are some gamers who do really value that image detail in gaming though, especially in games where the 60Hz limitation isn't an issue, and they are not so sensitive to it.

I said 4K on 27” and 40”+ screens.

 

[TNA]

"The debate" was inclusive of the entire thread.

And we agreed from the start, you just refused to see it.

To be fair the entire thread is nearly filled up by the two of us

Fair enough mate. But just before I go, I just want to say:

To further add to the debate; and this is pretty much just anecdotal evidence based on observations from polls on tech sites (might not represent average joe), more people seem to be buying 4k vs 21:9 than the other way around.



I am sure someone not following the thread will read this post out of context and jump one me. Lol.