-
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.
Is 4k gaming worth the performance hit?
- Thread starter bakes0310
- Start date
There is likely to be some yes, in some games anyway. Like I remember is Cyberpunk there was a small amount of ghosting when driving. Not sure if it got fixed. But apart from that I need to actually pixel peep to see differences. But at point you know it's good enough as you are not seeing the difference without going out of you way to look for it.
There you go, I answered. That is MY opinion. I am not on some team. I say what I see. There is no you guys. Just because on this occasion my opinion aligns with a certain group does not mean I agree with everything a certain group thinks or says.
Doesn't MSAA and supersampling kill fps? That is fine if you are playing old games. But try that on new games like Horizon Forbiden West or a game that is not even that new anymore like Cyberpunk 2077 and see what happens. Don't really see that as much of an argument really.
Soldato
I realise how monitor preferences can be quite personal. What I mean is the aspect ratio, curved or not and resolution etc....
I used to use a 27" 1440p Dell monitor, 16:9, and was fine with that, as my primary.
Then I bought a 34" UW, flat, I do not like curved, monitor and have tried very hard to enjoy using it. Well it is now my secondary monitor.
My primary is now a 32" Acer 4k 16:9 and I find it great, for both gaming and app use on the desktop. I would not want to go back to 1440p.
I still have the 34" UW as the secondary and do use it, but not to play games.
I have realised there is no one ideal size and shape, Heck some prefer certain panel types over others, it is just what works for you.
Of all the hardware I buy tho, buying a monitor is typically my least enjoyable buying experience. Playing the panel lottery game is bad enough, getting it right is pretty hard.
I use a 4080 GPU. I don't really see a performance hit at 4k, due to the settings now available to compensate for the resolution. Unless I pixel peep at screenshots I can't tell differences at those settings I use.
For some games at 4k it is about the menu in game, HUD'S or basic UI, etc that is better for me at that resolution.
I used to use a 27" 1440p Dell monitor, 16:9, and was fine with that, as my primary.
Then I bought a 34" UW, flat, I do not like curved, monitor and have tried very hard to enjoy using it. Well it is now my secondary monitor.
My primary is now a 32" Acer 4k 16:9 and I find it great, for both gaming and app use on the desktop. I would not want to go back to 1440p.
I still have the 34" UW as the secondary and do use it, but not to play games.
I have realised there is no one ideal size and shape, Heck some prefer certain panel types over others, it is just what works for you.
Of all the hardware I buy tho, buying a monitor is typically my least enjoyable buying experience. Playing the panel lottery game is bad enough, getting it right is pretty hard.
I use a 4080 GPU. I don't really see a performance hit at 4k, due to the settings now available to compensate for the resolution. Unless I pixel peep at screenshots I can't tell differences at those settings I use.
For some games at 4k it is about the menu in game, HUD'S or basic UI, etc that is better for me at that resolution.
Last edited:
So we can agree that the degradation of image quality is simply down to the individual preference but still degradation, let's not ignore that and my take on it is warranted since I've used all 3 vendor gpus yet you only called out one vendor.
I didn't need to pixel peep at all, it was the first thing I noticed straight away and I actually thought I had a faulty installation. Nope it was dlss turned on.
I'd argue it's not about old games, more of the bottle neck, in my case a lot of games tend to be more CPU bound like wow, which is getting a new expansion and every time they add an expansion the fidelity increases and the game actually looks good.
BG3 sees huge uplifts using X3D CPUs but is that an old game or did it recently receive game of the year?
I own horizon for ages on the ps5, so I ain't double dipping, I'm not that person.
But you are talking about your experience and as if that applies to everyone. That's not how it works.
I am not sitting here telling you what you are doing is wrong for you. I am saying you seem to think just because you tried one game that you noticed image degradation on and happen to play games that suit supersampling that does not represent everyone. You should not act confused and try and understand why others like DLSS. It is popular for a reason.
I play both new games and old. DLSS helps both boost frames and image quality vs using native and TAA on these new games. What is the alternative. Play on low and use supersampling on these games? That would make no sense.
You do you. I will carry on enjoying DLSS like most others
Exactly. Although disagree on there being "noticeable" degradation, maybe in some cherry picked scenes or for like 5% of the time when using upscaling, so far I still have not seen a single piece of evidence or substance to debunk all the evidence provided by computerbase, pcgh, tpu, oc3d, df, hardware unboxed too (most of the games where they said they preferred native over dlss was because of them using post processing effects like DOF, motion blur and old versions of dlss, had they changed this, dlss would have probably wiped the board), which usually always agree that upscaling tech is better than the native image "overall", obviously less so for FSR but there are instances where even that is better than native.
I've shown various games and DF did a video on this, MSAA, SMAA etc. are no longer good options, back in the day before TAA, they were great (well msaa was too much of a perf. killer) but now, simply no unless you're playing games that could run on a potato. TAA as shown isn't necessirly bad either, it's just bad implementations which are unfortunately most of the time. Everyone has different takes on clarity etc. but for me shimmering, aliasing, fizzling and all that is a no go, it is far more immersion breaking than a slight softness that you "may" get with TAA based AA.
Also, side note, funny how people say RT is too much of perf. killer and not worthwhile for the iq increase, meanwhile, MSAA......
As you say, you do you and enjoy the image degradation that I avoid.But you are talking about your experience and as if that applies to everyone. That's not how it works.
I am not sitting here telling you what you are doing is wrong for you. I am saying you seem to think just because you tried one game that you noticed image degradation on and happen to play games that suit supersampling that does not represent everyone. You should not act confused and try and understand why others like DLSS. It is popular for a reason.
I play both new games and old. DLSS helps both boost frames and image quality vs using native and TAA on these new games. What is the alternative. Play on low and use supersampling on these games? That would make no sense.
You do you. I will carry on enjoying DLSS like most others
At least be honest to others and be upfront that there is image degradation with dlss still brings.
I've owned all 3 GPU vendors, I didn't defend any of them for it.
And you are still bringing in the TAA argument that is coming from no where as a crux to your argument. You really are trying to justify hard here.
It was every game dlss I tried was terrible...
Last edited:
Can you provide some evidence of yours to show this and debunk several reputable sources who show otherwise?
If you're happy to have shimmering, aliasing, jaggies, awful temporal motion and so on, then you do you, to me those are the biggest image degradations you can have now.
Old games may be fine and no need because TAA wasn't a thing but for gaming from the last few years and going forward, a lot of games rely on TAA and for a lot, there is no option to disable it....
Last edited:
Also, side note, funny how people say RT is too much of perf. killer and not worthwhile for the iq increase, meanwhile, MSAA......
Exactly. Laughable.
What a load of tripe. I have been honest and you simply won't accept anything but your own viewpoint.
Somehow it is alright to say there is image degradation in DLSS in every game without needing to use pixel peeping and not provide any proof of this. But when someone says what's the alternative? Using supersampling? That is not fair?
It is simple, your way if doing things kills performance, just like people arguing RT kills performance and isn't worth it.
How about come back with some actual evidence of your claims and actual make a argument that is not in bad faith?
He can't and he won't. If he does it will be cherry picked game or two. Let's ignore what everyone else testing this online days though. Railgun knows better...
Associate
- Joined
- 28 Jul 2015
- Posts
- 222
I've tried both FSR and DLSS and haven't been impressed. To me it just looks like a lower resolution, but now with extra artifacts 
?
However, I have discovered a workaround... I don't use it and the problem is solved
Back to topic:
If you have/want a big screen, 4K is almost necessary. I'll turn settings down to medium if required to keep native 4K, although you have to be careful depending on the game.
Using presets (medium, high, ultra, etc) can leave performance and graphical fidelity on the table, so it's worth using a settings guide (if available) and spending some time dialing in your preferences.
?However, I have discovered a workaround... I don't use it and the problem is solved
Back to topic:
If you have/want a big screen, 4K is almost necessary. I'll turn settings down to medium if required to keep native 4K, although you have to be careful depending on the game.
Using presets (medium, high, ultra, etc) can leave performance and graphical fidelity on the table, so it's worth using a settings guide (if available) and spending some time dialing in your preferences.
Last edited:
I've tried both FSR and DLSS and haven't been impressed. To me it just looks like a lower resolution, but now with extra artifacts
However, I have discovered a workaround... I don't use it and the problem is solved
Look forward to seeing your evidence to back this up
Look forward to seeing your evidence to back this up
Don't hold your breath!
Associate
- Joined
- 28 Jul 2015
- Posts
- 222
Look forward to seeing your evidence to back this up
Sorry, I think you have me confused with the previous poster? It's horses for courses. If you like it, that's great
The best part of 4k for me is how sharp and detailed everything is. When upscaling, it's just not as clear/sharp, which is expected.
If the OP did a poll, I'd be voting "Yes"
Last edited:
You admitted there is some degradation, if you need to pixel peep to spot it, thats just you and your vision.Exactly. Laughable.
What a load of tripe. I have been honest and you simply won't accept anything but your own viewpoint.
Somehow it is alright to say there is image degradation in DLSS in every game without needing to use pixel peeping and not provide any proof of this. But when someone says what's the alternative? Using supersampling? That is not fair?
It is simple, your way if doing things kills performance, just like people arguing RT kills performance and isn't worth it.
How about come back with some actual evidence of your claims and actual make a argument that is not in bad faith?
He can't and he won't. If he does it will be cherry picked game or two. Let's ignore what everyone else testing this online days though. Railgun knows better...
My vision and actually many people also see IQ degradation using it.
Apparently I can't assess what I physically see nor others on this forum when they state there is IQ degradation because some peoples favorite youtubers say otherwise? Thats called affirmation, I don't need someone to tell me something looks good.
Let me put it this way, Native with no AA l(ignoring using MSAA or SSAA here) looks better using DLSS/FSR/XESS and its better then using TAA.
I rather have TAA/FXAA off then use it, I never use them and actually games I play don't force them on, not even BG3 does and thats modern and has won game of the year recently.
How do you present evidence when you and I see things literally differently, you can barely see the difference apparently or in your words its good enough to be used but to me its not, TAA and FXAA are not good enough to be used as well.
Probably with me amusingly but I dont think he did mistake it.Sorry, I think you have me confused with the previous poster? It's horses for courses. If you like it, that's great
The best part of 4k for me is how sharp and detailed everything is. When upscaling, it's just not as clear/sharp, which is expected.
If the OP did a poll, I'd be voting "Yes"
And on topic yes, its actually really decent to use it outright, very noticeable increase over 1440P, would love Oled but picked up my Lenevo legion y32-30 or whatever its called for £350 new.
I said "There is likely to be some yes, in some games anyway." and gave Cyberpunk 2077 as an example.
But you keep repeating the same line over and over...
And I need you telling me that playing native without any AA is a good thing?
Bwahahahaha! Claims he has great vision then says he can't see the jaggies. Are you even reading what you are typing?
Exactly you can't. Your eyes do not see jaggies apparently...
Last edited:
I said "There is likely to be some yes, in some games anyway." and gave Cyberpunk 2077 as an example.
But you keep repeating the same line over and over...
And I need you telling me that playing native without any AA is a good thing?
Bwahahahaha! Claims he has great vision then says he can't see the jaggies. Are you even reading what you are typing?
Exactly you can't. Your eyes do not see jaggies apparently...
If I may, native with jaggies actually looks better then the blurry and smearing that dlss, fsr causes if I had to use this argument.
You really are stretching for cruxes here.
Just cos you have accepted the low bar, i haven't, your some degradation but acceptable isn't acceptable to me, it looks bad to me.
Your good enough isn't good enough to me and many others as well.
Lol. Native with no aa
Not sure who you are trying to convince here. But your not doing a good job.
I mean do you consider TAA worse then native?Lol. Native with no aa
Not sure who you are trying to convince here. But your not doing a good job.
I do, like dlss etc, it does in fact butcher detail as a whole scene through out.
I get to enjoy 4k at it's full resolution which alone has great detail and even able to turn on msaa if required and still get great FPS, don't see the issue.
You just need to accept that me and others can see that dlss actually degrades iq throughout the whole scene, static and in motion, you just don't like my stance on this.
You and me just have different standards to what's acceptable to the degradation and requires YouTubers to give you affirmative that the degradation level is ok to you, to me it isn't.