2k or 4k for gaming?

chascos69

chascos69

chascos69

Associate
Joined
11 Jun 2020
Posts
2
Hello. I have a doubt

My fullhd monitor broke down and my first challenge is to buy a 4k monitor TO PLAY EXCLUSIVELY

However, I have read that to be able to move a 4k fluently you need a very very powerful graphic (I had planned to buy a gtx3060 or 3070 as well) and that it is very possible that those resolutions will be obsolete soon. And second, 2k + HDR is better than 4k

If a game is very slow for me in 4k I had thought to put it in 2k or fullhd and ready but I have read that since it is not the native resolution of the monitor it will look bad (or worse than a native fullhd). It's true?

So to play do you recommend a 2k better than a 4k? (I see a fullhd very obsolete already) Anyone in particular?

Thank you
 
For exclusive gaming, personally I think 1440 is absolutely fine. It takes a lot more GPU power to consistently get well over 100fps at 4k. Higher fps us better than higher resolution IMO.
 
I’d suggest going for a monitor thats 2560x1440. Going to 4K requires a lot of GPU power and the monitor options that support higher than 60Hz refresh rates tend to be expensive.
You could look at an ultrawide that runs at 3440x1440, but depends whether you want the extra width.
 
Besides GPU power requirement of 3840x2160 pixels, there's bigger problem:
Availability of good high refresh rate 4K monitors not needing chroma subsampling etc crappy solutions.
In 27" size there's only LG 27GN950 released last fall but still without good availability and it's HDMI 2.1 reincarnation 27GP950 announced in CES.
And 32" models have long been nothing more than paper announcement.

Lot lighter for GPU 2560x1440 again has lots of high refresh rate choises.



spoffle said:
2560x1440 isn't 2K.
Click to expand...
It's more 2K than what's marketed as 4K is that.
 
EsaT said:
Besides GPU power requirement of 3840x2160 pixels, there's bigger problem:
Availability of good high refresh rate 4K monitors not needing chroma subsampling etc crappy solutions.
In 27" size there's only LG 27GN950 released last fall but still without good availability and it's HDMI 2.1 reincarnation 27GP950 announced in CES.
And 32" models have long been nothing more than paper announcement.

Lot lighter for GPU 2560x1440 again has lots of high refresh rate choises.



It's more 2K than what's marketed as 4K is that.
Click to expand...
4K is stupid as well, but no it's actually not closer. 3840x2160 is much closer to actual 4K (4096x2160) than 2560x1440 is to 2K (2048x1080.)
 
Always going to be a subjective one - but the ~8GB of VRAM on the 3070 class cards (some exceptions like the RX models) is probably going to be a limitation sooner than later at 4K. 1440p high refresh is a very credible gaming experience and well within the capabilities of the x70 class cards.
 
Right now the best option for gaming seems to be 1440p. I'd probably go for that rush now and save up for 4K OLED when they're available in the future with higher refresh rates.

Personally I like the 21:9 34" 3440x1440 monitors as they're great for productivity and also support freesync/gsync and higher refresh rates.

It still upsets me that no monitor on sale right now looks anywhere near as good as a 4k OLED television though!
 
silvagti said:
It still upsets me that no monitor on sale right now looks anywhere near as good as a 4k OLED television though!
Click to expand...

Philips Momentum look pretty decent. Though sadly they all seem to have that one little area that lets them down in one way or another. Philips could really have pulled out a winner with just a bit more effort and/or someone on the development team a bit more connected to the target audience instead of what seems to be a guess at what they wanted. (To be fair they do seem to have listened somewhat to criticisms).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom