Is 4k gaming worth the performance hit?

[TNA]

All depends on the game, for the games where higher res assets aren't loaded in unless 4k+ is detected, then big difference. For the games where this is done properly then hardly notice the difference tbh. Thankfully DLDSR along with DLSS solves that issue whilst providing the best IQ and performance "overall"

You still notice it, if you sit around 2 foot away like I do a lot of the times. If you sit 4 foot away then you won't.

Like when I am using a controller I tend to sit back a bit further. But when on keyboard and mouse my eyes are about 2 foot away from the screen. I spot the difference even if the game is 10-15 years old. If I didn't I would never have felt the need to stay on 4K in 2014 when I first got it.


But yes, DLDSR is great and makes a big difference.

 

[TNA]

Speaking of DLDSR, I think 2880x1620 looks sharper than 4k (which is just the regular downsampler to 1080p).

That's a lot less pixels. Not sure how it would look sharper. But not seen that res so will take your word for it.

How many feet are you eyes from the monitor?

 

[Nexus18]

You still notice it, if you sit around 2 foot away like I do a lot of the times. If you sit 4 foot away then you won't.

Like when I am using a controller I tend to sit back a bit further. But when on keyboard and mouse my eyes are about 2 foot away from the screen. I spot the difference even if the game is 10-15 years old. If I didn't I would never have felt the need to stay on 4K in 2014 when I first got it.


But yes, DLDSR is great and makes a big difference.

Barely for me unless as you said, sit really close but I would say that is then down to the PPI and your viewing distance rather than it just purely being resolution difference e.g. some of my previous phones with <1080p screens are way sharper/clearer than any high res tv/monitor I have had

 

[Jacky60]

Yes! Been at 4K since 2013 and can't imagine ever going back. I have only ever been at native 4K or super resolution (1.5X) as I can see (even with my old eyes) the quality difference and I'm obsessed with image quality and always have been.
Can't comment on upscaling tech other than even DLSS quality has never looked as good as never mind better than native. Also I'm less than three feet away from 49inch LG OLED so I can see every detail.

 

[Calin Banc]

That's a lot less pixels. Not sure how it would look sharper. But not seen that res so will take your word for it.

How many feet are you eyes from the monitor?

War Thunder - Imgsli

It's weird. I think there's some sort of sharpening filter going on. nVIDIA says it does the downsampling more efficiently, whatever that means - native is 1080p.
You can see at the gunsight of the rear gunner that the + / cross is visible with the lower res than with 4k where it goes away. Other than that, 4k has less aliasing.

Anyway, both look good to me.

 

[novalis]

It's your opinion of course but for me, I'd take the higher performance over a higher resolution. Even in PS5 games I always select "performance mode" instead of "quality mode"

 

[TNA]

Barely for me unless as you said, sit really close but I would say that is then down to the PPI and your viewing distance rather than it just purely being resolution difference e.g. some of my previous phones with <1080p screens are way sharper/clearer than any high res tv/monitor I have had

Yep. Indeed. Ppi is a thing. Extra resolution helps. It's why I like higher resolutions.

How many feet away do you typically sit?

 

[TNA]

It's your opinion of course but for me, I'd take the higher performance over a higher resolution. Even in PS5 games I always select "performance mode" instead of "quality mode"

Yep. A preference thing. After 60fps I tend to go for image quality over extra fps myself.

 

[Nexus18]

Yep. Indeed. Ppi is a thing. Extra resolution helps. It's why I like higher resolutions.

How many feet away do you typically sit?

My aw34, about 2 ft, my 4k 55", about 6/7ft

 

[TNA]

My aw34, about 2 ft, my 4k 55", about 6/7ft

Next stop specsavers then

I imagined you would be 3-4 foot away like most others. At 2 foot I see the difference without any issues. Doesn't look as sharp and clear to me.

 

[Nexus18]

Next stop specsavers then

I imagined you would be 3-4 foot away like most others. At 2 foot I see the difference without any issues. Doesn't look as sharp and clear to me.

There is no doubt there is a difference but it just depends on the game like horizon forbidden west, it's very hard to tell and so wouldn't be worth the performance hit, meanwhile ghost of tsushima, hogwarts, huge difference but that's more down to them not loading in higher Res assets below 4k. What I will say is that dldsr on my aw 34 looks way better than my 4k 55.

 

[TNA]

There is no doubt there is a difference but it just depends on the game like horizon forbidden west, it's very hard to tell and so wouldn't be worth the performance hit, meanwhile ghost of tsushima, hogwarts, huge difference but that's more down to them not loading in higher Res assets below 4k. What I will say is that dldsr on my aw 34 looks way better than my 4k 55.

I could tell the difference in that too but it was small enough that I took the much higher fps. I needed a higher baseline to make use of framegen you see

I am hoping a RTX 5070 at 4K with DLSS Performance will be the sweet spot.

 

[mattyfez]

Depends entirely on the game...

Stuff like hitman 3 and forza horizon 5, and lesser demanding games I play at 4k as I can get good smooth framerates at good in game settings.

Cyberpunk I run at 1440p though

 

[mrk]

Off memory only 2 games I recall loading high res textures only at 4K even when you select ultra/highest settings in a res below 4K, Hogwarts and the other one I don't remember but it probably was unimportant enough to not remember anyway

As for 4K vs 1440, well outside of those rare "quirky" situations...

3440x1440 - DLAA + Frame Gen

3440x1440 - DLSS Quality + Frame Gen

5160x2160 - DLSS Performance + Frame Gen

Full IMGsli with other scenes:

5160x2160 DLSS-P vs 3440x1440 DLSS-Q (Path Traced) - Imgsli

Temporally they are all super stable in motion and you can't zoom in 400% in motion anyway to pixel peep so the whole "it's just a screenshot" line doesn't fly with stuff like this.

Look at the framerates. At the upper end of the GPU scale sure, it's all trivial and you use what you think looks best, but....

... You literally have to zoom in hundreds of % to see the small differences between 1440 and 4K in one of the highest fidelity games out on PC right now using the latest in engine technology. Plus, DLSS+1440 example generally seem to retain the best overall detail with DLAA only really pulling ahead in some areas like the shadow of the net curtain in the diner where DLSS can't quite hit those shadow details, elsewhere DLSS 1440 retains a bit more detail but overall DLSS whether Quality or Performance has the better AA in other areas, notice the DLAA shots have slightly more jaggies if you zoom in about ~400% than the DLSS slides?

Also, playing with a controller on these games I've discovered that any 4K mouse latency introduction from path tracing at this sort of res is completely gone as controllers don't have this problem so just flick to 4K if desired, even use DLAA/DLSS with frame gen and simply enjoy slick visuals and performance lol.

I think I have discovered the ideal balance between what input devices to play with in certain genres of games vs the engine tech they now.

So really my finding is that the best performance is 1440 with DLSS Quality, but if you can afford the fps and potential VRAM cost of rendering at 4K with DLSS Performance, then go for it.