Is "upgrading" to 1440p worth it?I've always stuck to 24" 1080p because I enjoy high refresh and the 1080p native let's me use GPUs for longer. But always wondered if the grass is greener.How is the 1440p experience /v/? Is 27" or 32" size better? What's your average fps with a RTX 50xx card?
I have a 1440p 165hz 27" and a 1080p 60hz 19" monitor and I can't notice a huge difference in videogames desu. Maybe if you are using the monitor for work reading lots of text you could see a difference.
I mean, yeah?, 1440 is slowly setting itself as the "standard" so might as well make the jump, an rx9060xt is a fantastic 1440 card (as long as its the 16gig version) same with the 5060ti. 1080p is still a perfectly good resolution though, specially if you still have a 23 inch monitor or smaller.
>>720009664Picture is a lot clearer and once you upgrade it'll be hard to go back. If you're happy not buying GPU upgrades stay with 1080p.
>>720009664>upgrading to 1440pbro its not 2015 anymore, non retards now upgrade to 4k 120 hz at least. You have no excuse, you can get a 4k 120hz+ monitor for less than 1000 dollars now.
>>720010518I play competitive multiplayer24" 1080p 240hz+ is still the default
>>720010518>bro its not 2015 anymoreIt might as well be. There's almost nothing that's come out since then that's worth upgrading all my hardware.
>>720010518You'll claim that you're playing at 4K 120hz and then you'll put your shit to the lowest performance modes possible for all the frames you can get. It's pointless, may as well not even bother at that point.
>>720009664Yes, that said, I'll never do it. I have my reasons.
>>720009664I would wait until next gen. Something that is more powerful than a 4090 is going to mean that 1440p is the new 1080p which will mean it's CPU dependent, 4k is the new 1440p and 8k will be the new 4k.
>>720009664Jump to 4k and use upscaling if you're struggling with performance
>>7200096641440p 360 hz QD-OLED Chad hereThere is nothing better
>>720009664Went from 24" 1080p144 to 32" 1440p180It's worth it4k is a meme because nothing can drive it properly yetUpscaling and framegen is even more of a meme because it looks and plays like shit
>>720013492You'd be waiting a while, considering all of nvidia's R&D budget is going towards AI memes.There's no reason to upgrade until a card can do 4K60fps comfortably with no upscaling/framegen though, so until then, something like a 40/5070 ti can handle 1440p.
>>7200096641440p is the minimum acceptable for a 27" screen. You do not want 1080p at 27" while sitting at a desk, DPI is low and it looks bad. 1440p looks alright but really 4k is where it's at. The sharpness, detail and text quality are on another level. I don't think you'd be disappointed by 1440p coming from 1080p but in 2025 I'd suggest just going for 4k 27" (for like 65cm / 2' viewing distance(.
>>7200096641080p to 1440p isn't huge. If you've already got a decent monitor that's 120+ I wouldn't bother. In fact 1080p to 4k and even beyond is way less than going from 720p to 1080p wasThat being said though, my 5070 is good to go for 4k 60fps in literally everything as long as I'm using dlss. I go back to most games of the early 2020s and native is fine. Last gen games, 8k is better than you would think, don't even have to worry about tweaking settings most of the time. Shouldn't have any issues with 1440p with a 5060ti
>>7200122074k DLSS P looks better than 1440p "native" TAA while performing better and it's not even close
>>720015017That's not even possible, I don't say this with disbelief but with pity
>>720015017>>7200151254k performance does look better than native 1440p, but 1440p balanced or dlss looks even better.1080p dlaa does too most of the time.
>>720014382I agree. The thing is 4k/60fps is going to be 4 gens away. But if you are wanting 1440p 60-120fps it's not that far off honestly. Old way>1080p(144hz due to CPU dependance)>1440p>4kNew>1440p(144hz or more due to CPU dependence) >4k(middle stack)>8k(new high end)
>>720015125I don't have a 1440p monitor to try, but TAA is such unholy, unbearable, absolute dogshit that I can see it happening.
>>720009664Nope, 1440p is an awful meme resolution for poorfags. Go 4k OLED or don't buy a monitor at all.
>>720014083PC gamers are really this stupid.
>>720014153cleartype or no cleartye you retard?fucking shill
>>72001444527" 1440P is the same DPI as 24" 1080P it's not a big deal. 3 inches isn't worth hundreds of dollars.
It's stupid to go 1440P now. I got one in 2019.somehow, 4K 120fps gaming still isn't the norm yet because shit is so unoptimized, even with DLSS so 1440P is often useful.
>>720016583It's not wrong. 4k looks much better in everything (like desktop programs) and can actually display 4k video too. DLSS Quality on a 4k screen (1440p rendering) looks better than 1440p on a 1440p screen, because the higher DPI of the 4k screen is a big improvement. The pixels on the 1440p panel are large and you cannot fix that with software in any way, when you're sitting close to the screen like at a desk this is easily visible if you have healthy eyesight.>>720017891It's a bit higher actually. It's not a big difference, only a slight improvement. The main advantages are a bigger work area - it makes a huge difference if you also use your PC for work and not just games - and the fact that the screen is physically larger. The resolution increase is mainly required to make the larger screen not look like shit.
>>720018914>4k has higher DPIYou're a fucking moron
get a 27 inch 240hz 4k oled or stick to 1080p. 1440p is a meme
>>720018914>the higher DPI of the 4k screen is a big improvementThat's only if shit is being rendered in such a way that gives you tons of per-pixel visual noise. A photograph at 1080p shouldn't even look pixelated at all for instance. Higher res is actually useful for desktop applications like looking at multiple documents/images though.
>>720009664My anime is smaller and porn animations that fit perfectly becaus ethey were at 1080p are now smaller and slightly upscaled, if you want a physical example render out a recording at 900p, or rescale an image to 900p. If you primarily consume other media that doesn't scale well with higher resolutions e.g Anime, TV Shows or Movies without a 4k release, Art (see: Gelbooru) then 1440p is a slight downgrade in that aspect, but significantly more desirable than 4K. If you primarily consume media that does scale well, basically Games, Vectors, or anything that's rendered in real time, then yeah 1440p is a pretty decent upgrade and 4K would be even better also more work space if you do 3d modelling and other crap. So choose whether or not you upgrade your monitor based on what you do the most.
>>720019360Certified retard post.
>>720020079>>720019007>>720016583Stop being rude.
>>720009664it's the best balance of good enough graphics while still not paying out the nose for high refresh 4k. 4k is a meme
>>720009664Higher res is degeneracy. Great for making things, bad for games.This is a spam thead. Don't post. You have nothing to say.
>>720009664Depends on DPI and viewing distanceI got a 27" 1440p and kept a 24" 1080p screen as a 2nd monitor, and they have a similar ratio, so its just a bigger screen that looks as good as the smaller one, but its not needed. Its like a 30% bigger screen with 30% the performance loss. Not worth it, I'd rather play at 120fps 1080p than lowering fps and playing at 1440p. I got a 3070 and 8gb vram can cuck you out of heavy aaa games, good thing I don't play these tho lmaoJust get a vrr screen with 90-120fps refresh rate if you play on a desk
I went from 24" 1080p to 32" 1440p. The difference is noticeable and I love 1440.
>>7200096641440p should be the new 1080p. It's basically the best sweetsop between sharp 4k and performance
>>720009996It's not a huge difference, but it's an edge in competitive games. I jumped 2 ranks in Rocket League simply by switching from 60hz monitor to 120hz one.
1440p was a good idea 15 years ago, but 4k is a massive upgrade. I chuckle when something has 1440p as the max resolution, it looks so small on my screen. 1440p is basically the modern 720p for retards who need to play the latest AAA slop but can't afford a decent GPU.
>>720009664You are absolutely not going to notice that shit while it's in motion.
>5060 ti 16>400 bux>8 pin, no additional charge>5070 12>520 bux>needs 120bux 12vhpwr psu>640 bux totalits like nvidia doesnt want to be given money. 5070 is a light load gpu but still wants you to use the shitty melty cable
>>7200220244k is shit for productivity. Most UI still don't work well with 4k even with scaling
>>720009664only 27 inches 4k is an upgrade
>>720022889>12vhpwr psu
>>7200096641080p is good for like league of legends, but any modern type game are getting really details dense and hard to see people 50m away, like Battlefield 6. You will actually see easier with 4k or at least 1440
>>720022024TL: This is how the average Graphics fag thinks.
>>720017891No 32" 1440 is same as 1080 24
>>720009664After going 1440p, I am reluctant to go back to 1080p, even if I have to dip to a lower frame rate. Though, if a game runs at less than 45fps, I'll go back reluctantly. It just looks clearer and cleaner with better colours.
>>720023270>ColorsTroll post
>>720009996This is because you're using the right resolution for each prospective monitor.
There is no reason not to anymore with how cheap the screens have become. Five years ago my 27", barebones 1440p 60hz monitor cost €270, I upgraded a few weeks back to 27" 180hz 1440p IPS Gsync etc etc etc and it was €160. A 1660 Super took care of me during that time too, it handled 1440p without upscaling nicely usually at medium settings with exceptions.1080p to 1440p is a massive upgrade and one you appreciate a lot outside of games even reading shit on a spreadsheet is way nicer. 180hz meanwhile has been nice for most games but I could go back and not be too upset.Don't listen to anyone telling you to upgrade to 4k unless you're one of those weirdos with a 32"+ screen staring them in the face, the diminishing returns come hard and expensive
>>720009664>thread where the 1440p and 4k losers out their retardationalways is funnyi dont care what your resolution is when you bought a 16:9 monitor (which, if we apply the same logic to, is a super outdated aspect ratio)21:9 is THE aspect ratio for gaming, movies and browsing the net. you don't need to increase the fov, the enemies dont become smaller, you get to see more detail, there's less aliasing, and it just fucking looks 300x better.so for you, dear OP, get a 21:9 monitor. if you can't afford 3440x1440 since it's pretty costly performance wise, get a 2560x1080 panel.
>>720023313Not at all, due to the lower res smearing the colours fade into each other with movement.
>>72001006112GB is fine for 1440p, I've literally never had a game max out my VRAM at that res. 16GB+ is 4K territory, unless it's a budget card that bottlenecks in the processing department instead of memory (and at that point your extra 4GB over a 12GB card is just a waste).
>>720009664Like every other resolution upgrade I've lived through (from 480p to 768p to 1080p), it isn't that noticeable unless you try to go back. And then it's night and day.
>>720015017I'd rather get a 1440p monitor and run DSR 1.78x, less (read: none) dogshit blurring than TAA or DLSS.
>>720023728DSR will always blur the image and look worse then your native resolution. congratulations on wasting performance for nothing. and dont bother with the screenshots, the screenshots will be fine, but never when you are running a virtual resolution that your monitor doesnt natively support.
what monitor should i get for my switch 2 and steam deck
>>720023787DSR is supersampling, retard, it's not a post-processing layer. It doesn't blur the image at all, anymore than 8x MSAA of old did. And native 4K still has visible aliasing on edges, which undeniably looks worse and because of the already astronomical performance cost of running native 4K basically forces you to pick some dogshit post-processing crap AA method like DLSS or TAA. But thanks for outing yourself as a clueless retard so I can stop replying.
>>720022962>scalingThis is because you're a macfag. 4k is not a scaling resolution, because only a literal retard would buy a screen with 4x the pixel count and use it to... run things at 200% scaling to get a glorified 1080p experience. Sure, you CAN integer scale 1080p stuff up, but why would you ever scale 4k actual down to 1080p equivalent? All issues with UI design go away when you stop treating 4k as a scaling resolution. If you need a smaller window, create a smaller window. You can have 4 1080p screens on screen at once.
>>720023574>12GB is fine for 1440pwhat about in 6, 12 months? what about when the new generation of consoles launch? when 18 gb becomes the norm which is as soon as march 2026 starting with 5070 Super, the 12gb cucks will get cucked outta the ass because nobody will bother optimizing for them. if you're buying a 700 dollar gpu which wont last for even a year, you probably need to get your head checked.
>>720023787>supersampling looks worse than nativeishygddt
>>720023515>manlet monitor copeI have more respect for people who still go on about 4:3, I love playing games in 4:3 on my 4k monitor with a 35" screen. Ultrawide is a shit movie resolution for crap cameras.
>>720024026>what about in 6, 12 months?Considering I bought this 12GB card over a year ago already, probably not a whole lot. I'd rather run a mid-range card for a few years and upgrade vs buying some fuckhuge 24GB+ card that will bottleneck in processing performance long before that RAM is relevant (e.g. 3090 owners trying to run modern games at 4K today).
>>720023940 >>720024053>dsr is supersamplingtechnically, but you are never seeing it on your monitor because it's getting blurred.find a fullscreen exclusive game, apply your meme DSR, so that when you tab out the monitor swaps to native resolution. take a screenshot in game, then stay in same location, and open the screenshot. compare through alttab and notice that the screenshot looks fine, but in ingame it's blurry. if DSR didnt come with severe drawbacks nobody would need to upgrade from their 720p monitors.
>>720024018>If you need a smaller window, create a smaller window. You can have 4 1080p screens on screen at once.>Get blind by accommodating software that isn't properly optimized to work with certain resolutions4k is good to get sharper images but only if the software is properly optimized and scalable. Nobody uses 4k in order to work on stamp sized windows.
>>720009664I got a 27" 1440p 180hz monitor, and I'm happy with it. You definitely notice the resolution increase, it's not just a meme. And the performance cost isn't that much unlike 4K. I think it's a nice middle ground. YMMV
>>720024347>4k is good to get sharper imagesYou fundamentally do not get it. Increasing your PPD is a waste of time, we have had shitty phones with 300 PPD screens for well over a decade at this point, and all the little zoom zooms still use them an inch away from their face so they can see anything.PPD is a trade-off, the higher you go, the more power you're wasting. When you go up to 120 PPD, you are wasting 3/4ths of your screen real estate and 3/4ths of your processing power for the sake of sharper images.The true value of 4k is when you stick to the desktop standard of 60 PPD, which means you just make the screen bigger. Same sharpness as 1080p, you just get 4x more of it.
>>720013492>8Kpointless
>DSRa meme indeed
>>720024483Yeah but you also need 60 inch display to make it viable
4K is the way to go.DLSS and FSR4 look good even in 4K Performance mode.Older games should have no troubles running at native 4K.Integer scaled 1080p
>>720024592You're really bad at math, huh? A 24" 1080p display converts to a 48" 4k one. Realistically, you can get away with a 43" (21.5" equivalent) if you're okay with sitting an inch or two closer.The problem is that manufacturers HATE selling big displays. They cost more to ship, it's why we switched to LCDs over CRTs in the first place. So they're trying to convince retards that the market is really in 27" and 32" 4k, which is the same as a 13.5" or 16" 1080p screen. Would YOU use a 16" 1080p screen? Of course not. But that's what they're selling you.
>>720024590>DSRWhat year is this?Nvidia has DLDSR, while AMD had better Virtual Super Resolution algorithm than Nvidia's DSR.
>DLDSR >cleans out tiny detail>still blurrier than nativeonly in a /v/ thread someone will be shilling shit like this. upgrade your monitor now and stop wasting your performance retards.
>>720024862why are you not posting DLDSR then?
>>720024862>>720024890coming up, so you can see how DSR and DLDSR work. use both images as reference.
>>720023515Yeah just render a bunch of pixels that are only going to be in your periphery, great idea.Gaming monitors need more vertical real-estate, not horizontal.
>>720024981devs make empty and horizontal open worlds now. more vertical space would end up with you seeing more of the sky and the games would look blander than they already are.
>>720025052Bro you can play other kinds of games, just because Ubisoft keeps releasing them does not mean you have to buy them.
Here's the old photos I found in the archives from back when DLDSR launched.Native 1080p
>>720025215Old DSR 1620p 30% smoothness
>>720025260DLDSR 1620p, most likely with 0% smoothness so the image is oversharpened or something like, I remember that part of DLDSR was fucked up in drivers or something.The motion stability was superior than both.
>>720025052Seeing more of the sky and the ground is better than not seeing 50% of the pixels your GPU is rendering at all because they're in your peripheral vision.You can get 90% of the effect of an ultrawide by just using a reactive backlight.
>>720009996People who say this need glasses
>>720015125It's true. 4k DLSS performance, in 2025, nets you more frames and higher fidelity than native 1440p. So many tech-challenged gamers out there, stuck thinking we're still in the early days of DLSS, telling people with 5070s or better to get 1080p/1040p monitors, when their games would actually look better and run with higher frames using DLSS at 4k or even 5k2k. https://youtu.be/HylcIjr2uQw?si=ZjH2-lSiTy3eVZjN
>>720009664>>720009996i have a similar setup. a 21 1/2 1080p and a 27inch 1440p. the larger monitor makes it a lot easier to see distant enemies. i switched to 1440p for CoD2019, because i couldnt see people in windows on the 21 1/2. the 27inch screen fixed that. the pixel density of both monitors is basically the same. I wouldnt go any larger than 27 at 3 feet away. 21 1/2 you can see the whole screen without moving my eyes. at 27 the edges are just outside of the zone where my eyes are the highest definition.
>>720009664Only 4K is worth it. Anti aliasing issues don't exist and everything looks sharp. Older games run well as long as your PC isn't outdated. If you're going to be playing modern AAA slop, you'll likely enable DLSS anyhow and it looks the best with 4K monitors due to how it works.
do native 4k monitor really much better than dldsr to 4k on 1440p monitor ?
I haven't seen anyone asking, so I guess I'll do it:what if I don't want a monitor larger than 24 inches? I have a small desk and it already feels like I'm sitting to close to my monitors. Why get an even bigger one?
>>720009664The 1440p or even 4k upgrades are just memes. The real upgrade is the refresh rate. I went from 60hz to 175hz and games just feel and play so much better now. The upgrade in screen size really only helps if you have a lot of programs running on your computer at once. But, if you like to use 2 monitors at once it is a slight pain because my 2nd monitor is a 1080p and dragging an app over to it can be a pain and you will constantly have to refiddle with program window sizes.
>>720026824>I have a small desk and it already feels like I'm sitting to close to my monitors.Have you ever had an eye test? Alternatively, go get a tape measure out of your daddy's tool box and measure how far away from the center of your screen your eyes are. Typical sitting distance for a 24" monitor should be between 2.5 and 3 feet.
>pclard thread>incels discuss random numbers and everything else except video games
test
>>720027369status: low
>>720027276>Typical sitting distance for a 24" monitor should be between 2.5 and 3 feet.Yup so I was right. I'm sitting less than 2 feet away from my monitors.
>>720027984Yeah, the problem is that you're blind. You need glasses.
>>720028450I don't even understand your insults anymore.Me complaining about too large of screen sizes make me blind? Despite the fact that I'm sitting to close to one?Or are you saying that I should force myself to sit at a further distance even though that would be uncomfortable to me?I'm genuenly trying to find an answer as to why everyone is pushing me to get a 27 inch 1440p monitor and I find none. The 1080p options are getting slimmer and slimmer which annoys me.
>>720028674I'm saying you don't understand because your eyes don't work. You couldn't even be bothered giving me an actual number, just "under 2 feet", so let's go with 1.8 as a guess, because you'd have to be a giga retard to not say 1.5 feet if it was that low. At this distance, your viewing angle is 51 degrees (hor), and your PPD is a laughably low 37, because you're blind and don't have 20/20 vision.For reference, at the CORRECT distance of 3 feet for your monitor, you would have a view angle of 32 (hor). A 1440p display (27", 2.5 feet away) would give you a view angle of 42 (hor), still miles below what you're using.A large format 4k monitor (43", 3 feet away) would give you a viewing angle of 64 (hor). Your current setup is much larger than 1440p should be, and you're only getting 1080p out of it because, again you are blind. Buy glasses, and then you might understand why people would want a larger screen.
>>720028883I've been to the eye doctor plenty of times and I was never recommended glasses. My vision is almost perfect.And by under 2 feet I meant close to 2 feet, like 1.9Your argument here hinges on the idea what I want my entire vision to be filled by the computer screens. Which...why? two 24 inch monitors already almost fill my vision when at the desk. I'd rather my peripheral vision not be filled with even more screen. So you are really not giving me any reason why 27 inches would be better, only why it would be worse.
I've had my GPU for too long and having a 1440p monitor is a liability trying to make more recent games run. However a 1080p screen over 20" looks like shit so I'm probably still glad I have it all things considered.
>>720029132>1.9Alright, so it's 49 degrees instead of 51. Not a lot of difference, your SINGLE screen is still much larger in your field of view than 1440p. When you stack 1080p screens side by side, that's a 98 FOV you're talking about. Again, for reference, you could have the same image with a 64 degree viewing angle on a 4k monitor, which would take up slightly over 2/3rds of your current setups FOV, while giving you twice as much screen vertically.Your issue is that you're blind, so you're sitting far too close to the screen. I don't know what made you do this, at 60 PPD if your eyes work, you should be able to trivially resolve individual pixels. Running a 39 PPD setup is a horrible joke, you need to sit further back.
>>720010701What do you consider something good that’s come out ?
What about reverse compatibility with old computers and their soft?
>>720029392>our issue is that you're blind, so you're sitting far too close to the screen. ???what part of "I can't comfortably sit further away" do you not understand? This is the distance I have from the screen if I sit in a neutral sitting position on the chair, with my back straight. if I wanted to see the screens from 3 feet away I'd have to lean back against my chair.
>>720029567Do you live in a fucking shoebox? Put your monitors further back on your desk.
>>720023515based anon, I play on 2560:1080 for the rest of 10 years and I'll never go back to 16:9 ass ration. Btw how did you create such detailed picture just under 4MB?
>>720029693I have them as further back as I possibly can. My desk is only 60 cm in width
>>720009664Hair rendering is still shit even if you use DLSS 4 at 1080p
>>720009664It has been so long since I used a 24 inch 1080p I honestly can't say. But I love 27 inch 1440p. 32 inch 1440p is way too big in general, let alone for 1440p.If you're happy with your current monitor I'd just chill. Idk what country you're in but things could get a lot worse economically still.
1080 to 1440 is the last somewhat noticeable upgrade you are gonna get before DR kicks in.4k is a massive meme.
>>720029768Pull the desk away from the wall and stack boxes to put your monitors on instead, then.
>>720023515The only game where ultrawide might be worthwhile is PoE outright giving you a massive sight advantage
>>7200298671440p is a mild increase, 4k is 1080p*4. 6k would be better, but nobody is ever going to make 6k monitors of a suitable size.
>>7200258644k dlss performance is not rendering at 1440p, so it doesn't "net you more frames" than native 1440p, which is what that anon pointed out, you senile incel. kys.
1440p is, IMO, the cutoff point. It is where dinminishing returns start being noticable. The jump from 480 to 720 is huge, from 720 to 1080 is not as massive but still big, 1080 to 1440 is great but you're now noticing less of a leap every time.4k is practically useless and does nothing but force your GPU to draw more pixels you won't notice anyway.1440p is the sweet spot and I don't see myself ever leaving it unless there is some GPU-revolution.
>>720023515I sometimes hook up my OLED tv and do a custom resolution of 3440x1440p. Basically an ultrawide. I get to play the odd game here and there that is worth having UW for without buying unnecessary monitors. I also have a nice TV that fills that niche. And that TV was probably cheaper than any UW of similar quality
>>720009664its 2025 OLD MAN. 1440p is the new 1080p
Yeah27'' 1440p is just more visually pleasant in general, not just ingame.It's probably the sweet spot. Less GPU intensive than 4k, HD enough, not too big at an arm's distance, you can't see the pixel grid. Scaling is not great on Linux but, 4k isn't either.
>>720010518Most of the blur in videogames comes from motion. 27 inch screen is required for 4k. 21 inches your looking at 3k. 15 inches you get 1440p.In either case as I said before he should focus on a 240hz 1440p monitors. If he buys a 6090 then he will probably do well with a 24 inch 3.5k 240hz screen.
>>720029948>4k is more than 1440woooow no way really dude? I didn't know!you are fucking retarded and missed the point of my post, kill yourself
>>720029990I don't think I'll ever get tired of the 1440p cope. I-I didn't want more screen real estate anyway, it's not a big deal!1080p to 1440p is barely more of a jump than my fucking 1280x1024 CRT was to 1080p. (1.58x vs 1.77x). Meanwhile 4k is 4x 1080p, and 2.25x 1440p. It's a whole different level in terms of area increase, lil zoom-zoom.
>>720030367>look at how much money I've wasted on worse performance in every game>I'm totally not bitter about it which is why I feel the need to defend my terrible choices online
>>7200096641440 is a solid step up from 1080.
>>720009664I had a 24" 1080p 240hz monitor. I switched to a 27" 1440p 165hz monitor because basically nothing but the most autismo competitive games can run at >60 fps anyway and I wanted a bigger screen with more pixels.Yes it's worth it.
>>720030604Everything worth playing runs at 4k just fine.
>>720009664I regret 27''. That's all I will say.
>>720024108you dumbass
>>720025864I'm not paying the Nvidia tax so I can add input latency and look at upscaling artifacts during motion, sorry
>>720030992>>720030734I'm getting mixed signals
>>720031663I'm very sorry you don't understand FOV.
>>720031942pretty sure I've spoken to this drooling retard beforehttps://arch.b4k.dev/v/search/image/9REzAmv5wCxHu16bE8Ee1A/
>>720032039And I'm pretty sure you still don't understand FOV.
>>720032039>for the past three years this poster has been mentally challengedsad
>>720032129incomprehensible stupidity and it's not even bait
>>720032213You post the same retarded comparisons every time, it's amazing. Yes, 3D engines allow you to increase FOV, it's very cool stuff. 16:9 will always be superior to 21:9 when you compare like for like, instead of going "n-no, my ultrawide is better than my 20 year old 1080p monitor" like a retard.
>>720032039>>720032129i'm retarded but is it that one of you values vertical FOV and the other horizontal?
>>720032352No, the ultrawide guy legitimately thinks all these screenshots are somehow faked because he doesn't understand FOV. It's very sad, he's been this delusional for years because he has to justify his purchase.
>>720032352The top replay shows a game with its default fov(which you can change in both cases), showing 21:9(the aspect ratio) displaying more of the game.The bottom shows a retard increasing the FOV which distorts the game. He appears to be mentally challenged and thinks this is a substitute for a wider physical viewport. This is an example of what happens when your IQ is 70.
>>720031942rare 'cado sighted!
>people unironically use AA at 4K
>>720032476I've got to ask, how do you think your magical 21:9 games achieve a "wider physical viewport"?
>>720032554Jaggies must die.
>>720029948>PS5 have 8k on their boxNever not be funny
>>720010518A thousand dollars for a monitor is retarded.
>>720032756It's expensive but not retarded unless you don't stare at it all day and if you don't do that, why are you here?
>>720032554I don't really, but it's kind of a necessity for UE5 slop (then again you need a 5090 to run those at 4k anyway).
>>720009664Yea, it's the sweet spot.>>720010518There isn't a single card that can even reliably push native 4K at 60 fps.>inb4 muh framegen/dlss/fsr
>>720032554Modern games force TAA because they are made with upscales in mind from the start, to hide TAA you need to turn upscale on.
>>720009664>I NEED THE FRAMESYou're not making money off videogames if you were you'd be able to afford both instead of crying like a bitchFucking idiot.
>>720029948I was already not a fan of the scaling on 1440p, but 6k is just disgusting.
>>720033028After moving to 4k, I find that I very rarely scale anything anyway. For content with a fixed resolution I prefer to just play it in a window.
If you sit at your desk like a normal person, a 24 inch screen is optimal. At 24 inches, 1080p has good pixel density. There's no reason for 1440p unless you are an autist.But if you want a bigger screen because, say, you sit further away sometimes (sofa, bed), then 24 inches doesn't cut it. Text is too small, details easy to miss. So you want at *least* 27 inches and preferably 32. For these, the pixel density of 1080p isn't good enough. You can make an argument for 1440p or 4k. But since you're sitting far away, it doesn't matter anyway
>>720033135Fair enough, if it's your preference. I used to tend to windowed too but at some point I shifted to full screen for some reason.
>>720015017TAA is not native.
>>720033165You aren't making any sense. If you want to sit further away, just get a larger screen, there are plenty of old 40" 1080p TVs you could use. 24 inches is not optimal, which is why most people use dual monitors. Optimal is somewhere between 6 and 8k at the same pixel density, which is 60-80 inches for a monitor. Excellent is somewhere between 12-16k at the same sizes.
>>720033165>At 24 inches, 1080p has good pixel densityYou're wrong there but I do agree with he 24" thing, that's why I went from my old 24" 16:10 to a 34" 21:9. It's got the exact same vertical height but is just wider so it was a really comfy upgrade.My next one will probably be some stupid 32:9 or whatever they're called with some 4k resolution, it'll be awesome having a desk full of a monitor instead of having to use 3. Though I will probably still use 3, or 4 even.
don't fall for the 4k meme it's an Nvidiot trap
>>720033581I used 4K display for 3 years on my old 2070S.
>>720021832>>720023515Stick to your other thread, retard.
>1440pMeme resolution. Everything is either 4k or 1080p. Enjoy everything being upscaled or downscaled. >b-but it looks good in gamesAnd looks like shit doing anything else.
>>720033743>it looks good in gamesDo you know where you are?
>>720033743>Everything is either 4k or 1080p.you know you can change your resolution rightlike to, say, 1440p
>>720009664If you're buying a new monitor anyway, 1080p arguably doesn't make sense much since 1440p monitors aren't much more expensive these days and upscaling works so well at 1440p. But it's a different question whether the upgrade is worth it if your current 1080p monitor is doing it's job just fine.>>720010701This is a bit strange argument since we're talking about monitor upgrade. To the contrary, if you're only playing old games then the higher performance cost of 1440p matters less (though again, it matters less anyway due to upscaling).
>>720009664720p jump to 1080p felt like a HUUUUGE fucking leap in quality.Then 1080p to 1440p is kinda noticeable if you're a little close to your TV (6 feet or less), then it's even LESS noticeable going 1440 to 4k.4k is a meme, 1440p is ok but not a must. Now 1080p is THE MUST. I cant believe i played all dem 720p games on ps3
>>720033743retard doesn't understand that games are rendered at the selected res and not up or downscaled unless you tell it to , in which case it uses a % scale and not fixed.
>>7200348908k is the best. 1440p or lower are for thirdies
>>720015475>4k performance does look better than native 1440p, but 1440p balanced or dlss looks even better.>1440p dlss balanced looks better than 4k dlss performance>840p upscaled to 1440p looks better than 1080p upscaled to 4k There's no possible way you can actually think this having looked at both.
>>720009664with upscaling these days just go 4K and use DLSS/FSR4
i regret ever changing from 1080p. now i have to deal with dpi issues for every game and get special extensions so chrome doesn't look blurry.
>>720015125common knowledge for a few years now. plenty of comparisons out there.
>>720032914>UE5 slop (then again you need a 5090 to run those at 4k anyway).Dont be absurd. 5090 is only truly needed to run UE5 games in VR at good frames and higher res
>>720010518There's no graphics card available for purchase that can run modern games at native 4k 120FPS.
>>720035047Change the scale to 100%I use 150% text scaling under accessibility.Problem is gone.
>>720035148it's a 17" screen. i can't see anything if i do that.
>>720035218a 17" 4K screen?sounds like a (you) problem
>>720034964>8k is the bestI know you're most likely memeing...but first of all 8k tvs are MEGA expensive, like 20 times more than higher end 4k tvs, and most importantly even with a 5090 most games would struggle to run anything at 8k... maaaaybe 6k however.I know VR games is basically 2 x 4k screens , and those can hit around 70-80 fps at times with a 4090 if you mess with UEVR
>>720035329>autism chump tells me about a TV I owned which he doesn't shut up retard.
>>720035106Does running a game below a steady 60FPS even count?
>>720035218also, try firefoxchromium browsers does weird things with image scaling, plus firefox has ublock
>>720035218>17" 4K screenCan't tell if bait or retarded.
is there a really wide and tall monitor?
>>720034931I just told you that its good for games.
>>720036001Yeah, 4k when you don't buy a tiny cuck screen.
>>7200369454k isn't really wide. >>720036001Apparently there isn't. Just 32:9 which is even wider but not taller. Seems like the best monitor is a 57" 32:9 though, which is quite tall and wide but I was looking for something like idk 28:12 or something funky like that.
>>720037610>4k isn't really wide.4k is pretty wide if you buy a suitable display, it covers 60 HFOV at 60 PPD. You're only getting something wider if you're getting a 5k ultrawide, and those are really expensive.>>720037610Yeah, if you want to go that wide, there aren't that many decent options. 85" 8k is going to cost you more, but that 57" is fucking tiny, being the equivalent of 32" 4k side by side. Ideally we'd have 65" 6k by now, but you know, lol, lmao, expecting monitor manufacturers to make anything usable.
The retards saying 24" is good enough (past 2020) are all third world btw. 27" is much better.
>>72003761032:9 is retarded with diminishing returns. 21:9 is the sweet spot for third persons, mobas, arpgs, fps, crpgs. only thing 32:9 could be useful for would be first person driving sims but i'd want even wider than that desu, and the monitor would have to be curved otherwise it'd be wasted
>>720009664I really like 1440p, and the slightly higher PPI means I can sometimes disable AA and save myself from the blur with only a slight aliasing effect that I can usually ignore, everything looks better to me.I'm never going back to 1080p.I'll never go 4K cause I don't have the money to be buying the best GPU and monitors, and I'm scared that I'll also be unable to go back down to 1440p if I make the jump up to 4K in the same way I can't go back to 1080p.
>>7200134921440p runs really well on the xx70 and up Nvidia cards, what you're saying is pointless, at best you'll get a 10% boost in performance if you wait which means you can wait a little longer before needing to upgrade in a few years.
>>720038585Yes? Nobody was ever claiming 24 was better than 27, only that it was good enough. Imagine calling others third world when you don't even have basic comprehension skills.
>>720038585The retards saying 27" is good enough (past 2010) are all third world btw. 40"+ is much better.
>>72003862045" 21:9 seems kino.
1440p will look better and sharper because of the higher ppi at 27 inches compared to 1080p of the same size but generally speaking 1080p is fine and if you don't currently have any issues with it you don't need to upgrade. After all, it'll make your hardware age a bit worse since 1440p is harder to run on your GPU. I have 2x 1440p 180hz monitors and it's great. I only upgraded because my old monitor was 1080p 144hz at 24" and I wanted something bigger so 1440p was the natural upgrade and I was going to upgrade my whole pc anyway at the time too.
>>72003099227" is perfect for normal viewing distance.
Kind of depends on the game if it actually makes a huge difference
>>720040190People who say this kind of thing are total retards. Perfect would be total visual field coverage. Why would you ever not want to just move windows off to your peripheral view instead of minimising them?
>>720009664God, this place has some of the dumbest opinions i've seen, no wonder this place is so garbage.For 1080p you want 24" max, beyond this point it starts looking like shit.For 27" 1440p is perfect, no need for higher resolutions.For 32"+, consider 4K.Any person telling you otherwise, is encouraging you to buy garbage.
Wouldnt big screens like 27 and 32 be awkward for fpsThe fox would be so weird
>>720042875*the fov
>>720042832I have a 1080p 24 monitor and I have to zoom in everything because the 90 PPI is feels tiny to me
>>720042875No, just move your head closerThis guy make millions playing FPS like this
1440p 144hz is all you need; anything more is a meme designed to sell you $2000 GPUs.
I have a 4080 and was thinking my next display will be a 32" 4k but I still prefer the ~200+ FPS I get in most games.If I had 4k I'd have to use DLSS and have all kinds of artifacting
>>720042875I've been using 32 inch monitors since 2017 and it's not awkward at all.
>>7200433694k for vidya is a meme; there's barely any noticeable difference from 1440p, but the amount of GPU power required is significantly higher4k is for TV and movies and anime, not vidya
>>720009664If you even have to ask this question then it is absolutely not. There are better things for your PC you could be investing your money in.
If you aren't an ultrawide gamer you are a noob.
>>720009664Bump
>>720009664nowhy get more resolution with a tiny screen?seems pointless
>>720043619that wide angle is going to fuck with your aiming thoughthere's a reason pros still use 4:3it helps with the 1 to 1 mouse movement
>>720009664Nothing above 1080p is worth it because its all fake frames and resolution anyway
>>720046527okay sweaty
Been debating buying a 4k OLED, but I don't like upscaling and my 7900xtx can't hit 4k 60fps (minimum) maxed on games, so 1440p it is
>>720010518>hurr durr we are in da footore nao>999 usd for a computer monitor is a catch goyim !>i conveniently left out the 2000 usd gpu you need>btw i forgot to tell you no gpu can run 4k 120 fps todaykys
>>7200433301080plebs said that about 1440p monitors 10 years ago
I just upgraded to 34 inch 1440p at 180 hz max , va panel. I was done with 1080p after always using used tvs and monitors and it was a cheap upgrade. I have 2 22 1080p side monitors and a 27 1440p 144hz side monitor rotated. The thing you should think about is how much it will put on your system. 4k might be not worth and you might lose some temps. I Like my system to be light.
>>720009664Depends. If u use DLSS Quality in most games, you won't see a difference when switching to 1440p as 1080p on quality upscaling is already basically 1440p end results wise. And since Nvidia's promise of "All games will be playable at 1440p/4k from now on guys! Trust" failed horribly, there's no promise you will be able to run at 1440p. I have a 3090 and I cannot run most modern games at 1440p, they just legit won't.Sticking with 1080p but being able to have every graphical feature to max will look 100000000 times better than forcing urself on 1440p and having to turn everything to low.
>>720023569Retarded Resolution has nothing to do with colors. All monitors are not the same outside of resolution
>>720047251Please don't speak or write anything else ever until you have had an IQ test
>>7200096644k>2k=1080psame for oledif you can't get top of the line just don't bother and save money for your next gpu upgrade
>>720047430External output resolution is a dead concept. The only thing that matters is internal resolution and graphics rendering.
>>720047602Ok so explain how dlss quality on 1080p which is rendering at sub 720p and scales to 1080p with shitty AI is "already basically 1440p"
>>720048345The Quality and Balanced options in DLSS and FSR both also add a super sampling effect after the upscaler. This is why those don't provide a perf boost as much as Performance and Ultra Performance do, and its the same reason why DLSS Quality 1080p looks better than native 1080p, since it also super samples ur image, and why AA is not needed when using upscalers.And aside from the DLSS discussion entirely, if u want higher sharper detail through resolution....you can just crank up ur game's internal resolution slider. Getting a 1440p monitor forces you to render at output 1440p if you don't want it to look like ur playing Quake in 96, meaning that if the game ur playing cannot reach ur desired framerate natively or with ur upscaler choice on quality/balanced, you have to resort to LOWERING your internal resolution which always looks like utter garbage, or lower your graphical options, and upgrading ur monitor only to lower or graphical options is the ultimate example of being a tech cuckold.The future where everyone is gaming on 1440p or 4k monitors died the moment games couldn't be optimized enough to support that future.
>>720009664If you feel like you need more clarity then sure, though i personally have trouble seeing the difference. Still games nowadays murder their rendered output anyways so you won't get much out of it for that.
>>720049187I don't agree with 1080p Qualitty = 1440p native (and more so 1440p Quality) but upping or resolution slider is definetly a superior choice to upgrading to a forced resolution. I upgraded to a 4080 and instead of upgrading my display I'm still using my old one but running most games at 130-150% internal res and everything looks incredibly sharp.
