Is 4k gaming worth the performance hit?

[Klo]

It's all subjective, until you mention that FSR isn't as bad as some people think, then the shrieking begins

 

[TNA]

You and me just have different standards

Yep. I can't game with jaggies galore

 

[Troezar]

If you need upscaling to play at 4K you need a lower resolution monitor or a more powerful GPU

 

[jp7152]

Personally I think the addition of HDR is a bigger upgrade than going from a lower resolution to 4k. The first time seeing Flight Sim at night on an OLED I was blown away.

Some games of course have crappy HDR. It can also be a fiddle to set them up correctly. However when you get a good one it's definitely worth it!

 

[VonScar]

Hardly any game runs at 4k on consoles and many games do not on PC. Why? FSR and DLSS.

I agree with above post HDR and OLED are both amazing. 4K not so much, because it is an upscale from a lower resolution anyway frequently.

 

[bakes0310]

Hello thanks for updates. Difficult decision.

Would I be happy on a 34" super wide 1440p OLED monitor, or would I need 4k if I'm considering an upgrade.

 

[Bill Turnip]

I run 3840x1600, and love it. Whether 4k is worth the performance hit depends on the level of performance you're getting I suppose, and your preference. I personally prefer higher frame rate, and would rather a lower resolution to achieve it.

For me, if it was 4k at 30fps or 2560 x 1440 at 60fps, I'd be choosing the latter each time. If it was those resolutions at 60fps and 120fps respectively, then it's a tougher decision and would probably depend on size of screen. Id still go for 120fps, but either is good there.

 

[Bill Turnip]

Hello thanks for updates. Difficult decision.

Would I be happy on a 34" super wide 1440p OLED monitor, or would I need 4k if I'm considering an upgrade.

You replied as I was typing my response! I'd probably go for the OLED ultrawife. It's the sweet spot as far as I'm concerned. Check out how potential burn in affects your potential monitor - I'm out of the loop on it, but my understanding is that they're fine, but I'd definitely double check first.

EDIT - Ultrawide, not ultrawife!

 

[TNA]

I run 3840x1600, and love it. Whether 4k is worth the performance hit depends on the level of performance you're getting I suppose, and your preference. I personally prefer higher frame rate, and would rather a lower resolution to achieve it.

For me, if it was 4k at 30fps or 2560 x 1440 at 60fps, I'd be choosing the latter each time. If it was those resolutions at 60fps and 120fps respectively, then it's a tougher decision and would probably depend on size of screen. Id still go for 120fps, but either is good there.

Yeah, these days I find I want 60fps minimum. Used to be able to deal with 30 fps no problem before but now I like 60fps. 90fps is a bonus, after that just feels like a waste and I would rather the card not run full pelt. Keep in mind I play single player games almost exclusively

What I would say about 4K though is the higher resolution only becomes an issue to drive if you are not using DLSS. These days games that are hard to run come with it in most cases or at least that has been my personal experience. You basically just run it on DLSS Performance mode which is basically as if you are running it at 1080p. Or go DLSS Quality and that would be like running it at 1440p

 

[Bill Turnip]

I'm leaving DLSS out of this, just looking at my criteria for 4k over lower resolutions. I also use it, but it can be used for lower resolutions too, which is why I'm purely looking at frame rates as a comparison here. How you get there is for another thread.

Totally agree with you though, if I'm playing a game at 30fps on my PC, I would definitely question why, as a console would provide that for a fraction of the cost. Not all people agree, so really before answering if 4k is worth a performance hit, we need to know lowest required performance.

 

[Raelgun]

Hello thanks for updates. Difficult decision.

Would I be happy on a 34" super wide 1440p OLED monitor, or would I need 4k if I'm considering an upgrade.

Really depends on use case.

I like both, though I have gone for 32 inch 4K monitor that is 120hz.

I have a 7800XT and I run games only Native ( you can see from my posts I do not like upscaling stuff at all and never use it ) and I get above 60 FPS and in some games I actually am stable on 90 FPS or even 120 FPS, I still dial in my settings but even on my 1440P monitor I do the same, some settings I dislike, some I like, some have really poor diminishing returns when going up in settings, yet I still have a consistent and sharp image through out.

I just understand where the bottle necks are in the games I play which are always CPU bound from my Ryzen 5900X.

The increased pixel density and just increase in pixel count is noticeable even from a 1440p 27 inch monitor, bare in mind ultrawides share the same pixel density as their 16:9 siblings.

I defo can say stuff like jaggies aren't much of a thing even with AA off, so its not something that ruins things.

If I had the money, honestly the new 4K Oleds is what I want but they all have some form of major compromise, the Alienware to me would have been perfect if it was flat, that HDMI arc is game changer for using Dolby atmos sound bars.

The only time I get 30 FPS or below that is when theres about 300 people doing the same event in WoW.

Also if you do any productivity stuff, the 2 formats really shine in their own way, I do photo editing, video editing and coding and felt 4K was the way forward for me.

Also check this video out for some idea,

Testing Ultrawide Resolutions with the 7900 GRE Steel Legend!

Check it out here: https://click.linksynergy.com/deeplink?id=W*iCgMMiXhk&mid=44583&murl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.newegg.com%2Fasrock-radeon-rx-7900-gre-rx7900gre-sl...

youtu.be

Gives a nice idea to where these formats actually stand with each other.

 

[Journey]

I don't really play AAA games on my monitor but the Mrs plays on the 65" 4K OLED in HDR, and we've established that it is totally pointless trying to get 100fps+ at 4K, when the lower resolutions look great still, even some of the upscaling is OK if not perfect.

There is no one answer to your question, so almost pointless trying to answer it as you'll just create a massive bun fight between the usual posters who live and breathe only graphics, and those who don't give a poop. I am somewhere in the middle as I service other users, nothing really makes me go wow anymore as I am not 12 and playing on a Sega Mega Drive.

 

[HRL]

If you’re only happy with +60FPS then probably go with the UW.

Even with a 4090 there are some titles that’ll struggle hitting over 60FPS with all the bells and whistles turned up, and it’s an expensive business chasing high FPS @ 4K. Considerably cheaper chasing higher FPS at lower resolutions unless you’re content compromising on graphical settings and things like RT & PT, IMO.

 

[EdGey]

I'm saving the 4k upgrade until there's more GPU's readily able to power one. I'd need a 4090 to get the sort of FPS I like to play at... and aint nobody got time for that price. Even that beast isn't exactly comfortable at 4k, so it'll no doubt struggle with future titles.

 

[Phixsator]

Ultra wide is the way to go and it’s not as punishing as 4k I game at 3840x1600 be warned you can never go back once you sampled the delights.

Ultrawide is just a god send. Especially once you are on an OLED. So happy with my Samsung G8 OLED. Even though it's "only" 34" versus my previous 40" UW. It's sharp and I personally don't have any issues with texts rendering.

 

[Casdawer]

Once a month, I get an urge to "upgrade" my 34" to a 4K 32" monitor.

I love 34" but I do play some older games / emulators and not many support the 21:9 format so I have to play with black bars. The same goes for watching movies/TV shows. When shows support UW, they're amazing but the majority of shows do not and so you get black bars on the top, bottom and sides which looks terrible.

I have a 4070ti and I know that the 12GB would probably hold me back but I'm happy to lower settings to keep a stable 60+ FPS.

So far I've held off on doing it but 4K 32" monitors are dropping in price which makes them more enticing.

 

[Phixsator]

Once a month, I get an urge to "upgrade" my 34" to a 4K 32" monitor.

I love 34" but I do play some older games / emulators and not many support the 21:9 format so I have to play with black bars. The same goes for watching movies/TV shows. When shows support UW, they're amazing but the majority of shows do not and so you get black bars on the top, bottom and sides which looks terrible.

I have a 4070ti and I know that the 12GB would probably hold me back but I'm happy to lower settings to keep a stable 60+ FPS.

So far I've held off on doing it but 4K 32" monitors are dropping in price which makes them more enticing.

It's all about preference in the end. There is no right or wrong choice. Some hate UW, some love it(me) and some are neutral. Pick whatever float your boat . Regarding shows, i use the zoom function on my panel if I'm watching through its apps or zoom extensions if I watch in a browser. Solves the black bars and its very rare that I miss some critical scenery.

 

[JediFragger]

I have a 4070ti and I know that the 12GB would probably hold me back but I'm happy to lower settings to keep a stable 60+ FPS.

Being someone who's used both I think you'd be fine with the 4070Ti 12GB as long as you'd be happy to tweak settings to keep the fps up/vRam useage down. But if you're going to go 32/4k/240Hz then go the full ******** with OLED then you're set for a very long time

 

[SpellowHouse]

For me, no, it's not worth it. What is worth it, is OLED. Once you have tried OLED, there is no way back.

 

[moppy89]

OLED & 4K are two things I wouldn't be able to give up. Having not tried high refresh rate displays, I'd be more inclined to play at 50fps 4k than 144hz 1440p