• 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?

azazl187 said:
Come on now, 60fps is perfectly fine when using a mouse.
Click to expand...
To be fair if he has got used to 144hz and 144fps minimums it might well feel that way to him or others. But I am guessing for the majority that will not be the case. Unless one is playing fps games mainly, 60hz/fps is perfectly playable imo, obviously unless you just got used to high fps as mentioned.

Personally I would not mind having a higher hz monitor and still play at 60fps, which imo is more than playable. Buttery smooth as far as I am concerned and at 4K it just looks so much better than 1440p :D

Playing Shadow of War right now with a controller and fps locked at 57fps as per recommendation on the blurbusters g-sync guide and the game runs silky smooth. No need to use any anti-aliasing which in many games looks like you smeared vaseline all over the image :)
 
azazl187 said:
i didnt say you wouldnt notice, im saying that it is perfectly fine to use a mouse at 60fps for anyone no matter who you are. Even you.....
Click to expand...

I've got a 4k screen too, it isn't like I have no comparison to base this on. The image quality comes nowhere near close enough to making up for the smoothness of 80fps+ for me.

This thread probably needs a poll, to be fair. :)
 
Well On Black Friday upgraded 23 inch 1080p IPS to 32 inch Ips 4k . Overclocked the monitor to 72hz@4k also does 1440p@144hz Who said one cant run 4k monitor at 1440p@144hz :D Not native but looks good enough for shooters if i play any.

Very happy with the Image mostly playing slow games and Desktop :D aaaa And forza runs at 72fps with no drops with vsync :)

20181119-172736.jpg
 
Last edited:
azazl187 said:
Ok so i ran some benchmarks of AC Origins last night and it was maxing out my i7 2600k OCed to 4.6 and my 1080ti.
Click to expand...

Origins runs like a dog though. The "double DRM" (or whatever it is) makes it run kinda poorly even on really powerful CPU's. Basically I'm getting better (more consistent) frame rates from Assisins Creed: Odyssey.
 
TNA said:
To be fair if he has got used to 144hz and 144fps minimums it might well feel that way to him or others. But I am guessing for the majority that will not be the case. Unless one is playing fps games mainly, 60hz/fps is perfectly playable imo, obviously unless you just got used to high fps as mentioned.

Personally I would not mind having a higher hz monitor and still play at 60fps, which imo is more than playable. Buttery smooth as far as I am concerned and at 4K it just looks so much better than 1440p :D

Playing Shadow of War right now with a controller and fps locked at 57fps as per recommendation on the blurbusters g-sync guide and the game runs silky smooth. No need to use any anti-aliasing which in many games looks like you smeared vaseline all over the image :)
Click to expand...
Agreed dude, ive never liked AA even at 1080p.....
 
TNA said:
To be fair if he has got used to 144hz and 144fps minimums it might well feel that way to him or others. But I am guessing for the majority that will not be the case. Unless one is playing fps games mainly, 60hz/fps is perfectly playable imo, obviously unless you just got used to high fps as mentioned.

Personally I would not mind having a higher hz monitor and still play at 60fps, which imo is more than playable. Buttery smooth as far as I am concerned and at 4K it just looks so much better than 1440p :D

Playing Shadow of War right now with a controller and fps locked at 57fps as per recommendation on the blurbusters g-sync guide and the game runs silky smooth. No need to use any anti-aliasing which in many games looks like you smeared vaseline all over the image :)
Click to expand...
TBH thats reason I'm sticking to 60hz monitors. Once You get used to 100fps+ there is no way back. Im happy with 30-60 range with maxed details AA and stuff to kill fps :D
 
Zeed said:
TBH thats reason I'm sticking to 60hz monitors. Once You get used to 100fps+ there is no way back. Im happy with 30-60 range with maxed details AA and stuff to kill fps :D
Click to expand...
Yep. Much rather spend the grunt on better image quality :D

Horses for courses as they say :)
 
azazl187 said:
This is untrue. If you were an experienced gamer on the PC scene then you would understand that its all about a balancing act, you simply cant have it all with all the money in the world so you have to make allowances here and there. I for one am much happier to have a better looking imagine at a higher resolution than continue to game at a lower resolution to gather in over 120fps at all times. Drop the console comment because you are just as close to that experience with your lower resolution!
Click to expand...

I'm so confused by this statement, unless you're trying to run a game at 4k, 60fps is still the 'desired' fps at a minimum. 50fps may be acceptable and any lower is just a stutter/lag fest. At that point, you may as well indeed stick to console.

I game at 1440p/144hz. Whilst AAA titles and even some GPU intensive indie titles push my rig (8700k, 1080ti) to drop to the 100's and hell, even lower some times. It's still a vast improvement over 30fps...

In regards to the remark of PC gaming, been a PC gamer since I was a kid (a good couple of decades and then some). And yet I stand by my statement, the majority of people will drop settings such as HBAO/AA/texture resolution to get above 60fps. I don't know any PC gamers personally that would slap everything to max with less than ideal hardware, sit at 30fps and be happy with it. Granted, to have a top end system you need to drop a couple of grand these days. But it's a hobby... People wishing to buy mid tier hardware and expecting triple digit FPS at higher resolutions than 1080p are the inexperienced ones. You build around your resolution/desired frame rate. Not the other way round.

Again, your point confuses me as gaming on a PC at 30fps is utterly pointless.
 
agnes said:
I'm so confused by this statement, unless you're trying to run a game at 4k, 60fps is still the 'desired' fps at a minimum. 50fps may be acceptable and any lower is just a stutter/lag fest. At that point, you may as well indeed stick to console.

I game at 1440p/144hz. Whilst AAA titles and even some GPU intensive indie titles push my rig (8700k, 1080ti) to drop to the 100's and hell, even lower some times. It's still a vast improvement over 30fps...

In regards to the remark of PC gaming, been a PC gamer since I was a kid (a good couple of decades and then some). And yet I stand by my statement, the majority of people will drop settings such as HBAO/AA/texture resolution to get above 60fps. I don't know any PC gamers personally that would slap everything to max with less than ideal hardware, sit at 30fps and be happy with it. Granted, to have a top end system you need to drop a couple of grand these days. But it's a hobby... People wishing to buy mid tier hardware and expecting triple digit FPS at higher resolutions than 1080p are the inexperienced ones. You build around your resolution/desired frame rate. Not the other way round.

Again, your point confuses me as gaming on a PC at 30fps is utterly pointless.
Click to expand...
And I am equally confused by your statement bubby, when did I mention anything about 30fps?
 
Simon Belmont said:
I’m not chasing 4K. Very happy with my 1440p ultrawide. Not going 4K anytime soon.
Click to expand...

Yeah I’m not neededing 4K

I’m enjoying gaming again this winter with a 1080ti and Ultrawide....My next game is Wolfenstein II looking forward to it...

Like playing Doom but killing nazis instead of monsters lol :D
 
easyrider said:
Yeah I’m not neededing 4K

I’m enjoying gaming again this winter with a 1080ti and Ultrawide....My next game is Wolfenstein II looking forward to it...

Like playing Doom but killing nazis instead of monsters lol :D
Click to expand...

It is not about needing or chasing. If one wants the best graphics, then it ticks that box. Just the same way if someone plays competitive fps and wants 240hz monitor. Maybe you should make another thread saying why are people chasing higher hz monitors? The answer is obvious in both cases imo ;)

Could not get into Wolfenstein II, but I am enjoying Middle-earth: Shadow of War, although it did take me a while to get into it.
 
Touching on frame rate I'll provide my 2 cents.

For me anything above 80fps on a 144hz monitor is a must, I can notice/feel the frame rate difference below 80fps
But I find it really hard to notice the difference above say 80 vs 140
 
4K is probably one of the greatest technologies ever discovered by humans. Just watch 4K content on a 50-inch screen - brilliant photo-realism with all the details present.
No loss of quality, it is as if you stand directly in front of the scene and your own eyes are the camera.
 
4K8KW10 said:
4K is probably one of the greatest technologies ever discovered by humans. Just watch 4K content on a 50-inch screen - brilliant photo-realism with all the details present.
No loss of quality, it is as if you stand directly in front of the scene and your own eyes are the camera.
Click to expand...


Not penicillin then?
 
azazl187 said:
Penicillin is not a technology @easyrider ;). Plus some people can die from taking it so its not as great as you might think :D
Click to expand...

Oh it is.

After the war, chemist John Sheehan from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology pioneered synthetic penicillin in 1957 and first used the term antibiotic. His work opened the door for the creation of different, bacteria-specific penicillin drugs. Research still continues today in the penicillin and related beta-lactam antibiotics.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom