Would you rather..>Play 1080p on High Settings >Play 1440p on Medium SettingsConvince me if upgrading to a 27 inch 1440p monitor is worth it. It just seems like you are getting worse performance. Also I'm sure 720/1080p videos and streaming are going to look worse.
>>729064179I fucked up and upgraded to 1440p. I can run games fine but it really cut into my average FPS, so I definitely wouldn't say it was worth it.
>>729064476Yeah they say it's a 20-30% fps hit. I don't know if lowering settings can make up for it.How about videos/streaming? Is it tiny or pixelated since it's usually 1080?
>>729064179With modern games(TAA), a higher res does more to the visual quality then settings. Most games today also leverage uspcaling and 4k dlss looks better then native 1440p and a hell of a lot better then native 1080p with a higher fps then native 1440p, that at this point, if you play modern games, you are better off with a 4k monitor
>>729064756Just use DLDSR for games you can run at 4k.4k is a meme, I own a 4090, the second best GPU on the market, and it's not strong enough for comfy 4k.DLDSR is very close to the 4k output when you can afford it fps wise though, I know that because I've been using DLDSR 1440P on my old 1080p rig and noticed very little difference moving on to real 1440
>>729064740>How about videos/streaming? Is it tiny or pixelated since it's usually 1080?No, that's not an issue for me.
>>729064179>can you even tell?not with some retard's dumb fucking fat and color gradient in the way, faggotif you're going to repost shit for (You)s, can't you find better content at the very least?
>>729064756>>729064825Are you talking console or PC?4k is definitely not going to be fun without xx90 card on PC
>>729065112Relax bro it's just a random google image vaguely related to the topicWill this appease your tism
>>7290641791440p on low looks far better than 1080p on high
>>729065281Depends on PPI
>>729065315even if you have small pp it still looks better
>>729065327Not in my experience
>>729064179I just press x on the icon on my ps5 homescreen and start playing
I'd rather use a real resolution like 4k, instead of a 20 year old res like 1080p, or a 15 year old res like 1440p.
>>729064179Whats a good graphix card for 1440p?
>>7290641794K on low settings
>>729065621rtx4070/5060 or the amd equivalent, basically lower end of mid range
>>729065598>4kare you people trolling? do you play in 30 fps?
>>729064476that's why you get a new GPU when you upgrade to a higher resolution so it doesn't feel like a downgrade
>>729066082Stop playing unoptimised modern AAA slop, suddenly every game worth playing runs at 240hz.
>>729066152nta but is 4k support even common
I recently upgraded to a 27" 1440 from a 22" 1080. My GPU heats up faster even with not playing games, which is kind of annoying (I have a 2060), and frankly...it's actually too big as a computer monitor. BUT, I got a VA panel and I notice that my eyes get way less tired from looking at it compared to my previous IPS display.
>get 1440 or 4k monitor>all your legacy games look like shit or require 3 dubious russian patches to runT-thanks
>>729066223>is 4k support even commonI don't understand the question. It's a resolution, I've run into one game ever that had an issue at 4k, and that was Uplink, because it made shit too far away so it was a little harder to play.It's the modern standard of 16:9, so every 3D game works. For games with improper FOV calculation (basically anything that isn't Hor+ and was intended for 4:3 displays), you'll have the same FOV issues you'd have on any other modern screen without a patch or ini edit.https://www.wsgf.org/article/screen-change explains things better. Now, for better 4k support, the game should offer FOV adjustment, because obviously playing on a larger screen at the same FOV as a smaller one is stupid. Here's an extreme example of what FOV should be set to at 720p and 4k to achieve proper FOV.
>>729066565>4k monitor>have to play at 720p anyway
>>729066129I did do that but I still feel like I'm missing out on frames. I guess that's just because modern games are trash, thoughever.
>>729069365What gpu are you using anon?
>>729065201>1280x720pxIt ain't gonna appease anyone's 'tism. Post actual resolutions for good comparisons.
>>729064179You can use DLSS/FSR4 in Quality mode, I think it should look good at 1440p.I use 4K display and DLSS and FSR4 look good even in Performance mode.
>>729072414Yeah but it's like playing in 60 fps for 1440p and 100 fps in 1080p
>>729064179I can't tell the difference between 720p and 4k on my 1366x768 laptop, so it's a meme.
4k is a colossal meme pushed my retards who think they have superman vision.You also get retards who think they can see 5ms and talk about how they NEED to run a game at 180fps+ when in reality all they need is smooth framepacing, which vsync 60hz does perfectly to the limit of human perception.Machine measurable =/= hum,an perceptible but we have people who can totally see it I swear honest man yet studies show in blind tests nobody can.
>>729073361>poor>can't type != or ≠>instead chooses equals divided by equals
>>729073361I can detect a 0.5ms difference so..
>>729073361>4k is a colossal meme pushed my retards who think they have superman vision.No, you just don't understand 4k. My 4k monitor is 4x the size of my old 1080p one. It contains 4x more stuff, at the same PPD.
>>729073361is this a new "human eye can only see 30fps"
>>729073361>4k is a colossal meme>DLSS and FSR4 in Performance mode on the latest GPUs have barely any performance impact, so they perform almost as good as native 1080p>while looking a lot better than native 1080p
>>729073871>My 4k monitor is 4x the size of my old 1080p onebro has a fuckin TV on his desktop
>>729074280not him, but I literally do, it's comfy as fuck
>>729074347never got the appeal of having a big screen on my desk. Tried it, just hurts my neck as the screen is too tall. Instead, I connect to the TV in my living room via steam link.
>>729074443Move your screen lower, or your head higher, genius.
>>729074443I don't have it directly on my desk. It's like 1.5 meters away from where I sit, so I don't have to move my head that much.
>>729074521What kinda desk/chair combo are you using that allows you to do that with a 40"+ TV?
>>729073493t. Placebo
Here's my setup with beer bottles for scale
>>729074224lol, lmao even you copers will say old shit
>>729074559Your head should be in the top third of your monitor, and for a 40" screen you should be sat around 2.5 feet away, measured from eye to screen. At this distance you shouldn't have to move your head at all to look at the monitor.
>>729074856I assume you're >>729074534 ?Looks pretty comfy to be desu, but I couldn't use my PC like this
You DO sit the correct distance from your screen right anons? I bet most do not.>https://www.ultraselective.com/blog/optimal-viewing-distance
>>729074674t. someone who only used 60hz his entire life
>>729075090Do you also hear at 22khz by chance?
>>729073361have you actually used a high refresh rate monitor before? it absolutely makes a perceivable difference. if that difference is important to you however is another story.
>>729075036>minimum viewing distance>not immersing yourself in the game
>>729075280>anon is blind AND deafzamn
>>729064476that doesnt stop you from running games at 1080p
>>729077108based labrador
>>729073361>Pixels aren't real.
>>729078547lol, lmao>https://hothardware.com/news/scientists-claims-4k-and-8k-tvs-arent-noticeably-better-than-hd-to-the-human-eye
>>729075036This shit is so outdated, it refers to 16:9 as "Widescreen".
>>729076982>tn shitcan>immersive
>>729073361fuck off retard, 60hz is objectively not enoughthe only reason it even exists is because of the fucking power grid
>>729079443what's the marketer shilled panel nowadays? oled? I fell for IPS and while the colours are slightly nicer than TN I guess it has a fuckton more motion blur
>>729064179In basically all use cases I want one up from the bottom graphical settings and the maximum number of FPSs I can get.
>>7290641791080p! ᕙ( •̀ ᗜ •́ )ᕗ
>>729079581oled is the best we can get until microled becomes production viableright now a 110" microled tv costs $30k so that'll take at least a decadeor you can be a miniled coper and pretend that taking a hammer to the backlight somehow makes ips or va less mediocre
>>729073361>Machine measurable =/= hum,an perceptible but we have people who can totally see it I swear honest man yet studies show in blind tests nobody can.Actually line spacing tests in optometry suggest the average human under average conditions can perceive details at around one arc minute. That would equate to around 12,000 across your entire FOV, or for a screen that takes up one third of your FOV, around 4,000 aka 4k. If you have a massive monitor you might want to go higher.As for refresh rate, I'm not sure about the science of that, but I agree that it really doesn't matter after around 100hz if it's smooth, even though there are perceptible differences beyond that.
>>7290641794k niggaI was playing 1080p back in 2009
>>729064179Whether or not it's worth it to upgrade from a 1080p monitor to 1440p will completely depend on your GPU and how much of an fps hit you will take
>>729064179If the AA is properly implemented (like no smeared TAA) 1080 @ high all day
>>729079787What is the minimum GPU for 1440p?
>>729080201my 3080 is barely hanging on
>>729080474RTX 3080 is absolutely fine. A 3070 would be fine I'd wager if not hampered by only 8gb VRAM. I have a laptop with a 4090 which is probably not dissimilar in performance from your 3080 and it runs everything fine at ultra settings on the laptop's 1440p panel with DLSS set to quality. I got a portable OLED screen recently with 3k res and even that runs fine with DLSS set to balanced instead. If you're vehemently against DLSS then you may as well give up on modern games altogether, they are not designed to run properly without it, it is not a matter of hardware.
>>729080201Every slider must be all the way to the right at all times no exceptions so....a 5090.
>>729064179If you're not hitting 60 fps, you should lower the resolution/quality, imo. 1440p monitor is worth it for me as I also work on my PC and interfaces are a bit nicer, though at work I'm still on a 1080p (both 27") - the difference is not jarring.Furthermore it heavily depends on the type of games that you play - in 3D games where camera moves most of the time, it's less noticeable, compared to a strategy game, for example, where your whole screen is filled with 2D UI.
>>729081010what about a 5060 ti 16gb version?
>>729079443What downside does TN have other than muh viewing angles and muh 10% worse colors
If it was up to console fag we'd still be at 480/720p xbox360 tier of resolution
>>729083282>10% worselol it looks like absolute shit and it's still demolished by oleds at response timesbest flip that question and ask what upsides does tn haveand the only answer to that is being cheapexcept not really since those high end zowie tns are as expensive as oleds and there's a 1440p asus monitor out now that can do 720hz at 720p
>>729083282luv me smearing
>>729084297>>729083936TN has highest response wdym. That's why pro gaymers always use em
>>729082010Would be absolutely fine for 1440p.
>>729083282Bad blacks with middling whites. Very warm and power inefficient.
>>729084463The black pixels are physically slower than the others. Even the highest rated TN on RTings has this as an issue.
>>729084463they use zowie shitcans because they're fucking sponsoring themit would take you 10 seconds searching up zowie sponsor to find out about thisand no, literally nothing comes close, oleds are in a league of their own
>>729084463TN response was good like 10 years ago unc.Others have caught up and exceeded it now. 1ms used to be the gold standard of TN response, we're at 0.03ms now.
>>729064476That's because you're a retard with a low IQ. Probably still using Windows and nVidia cards because you're a sheep brained NPC
>>729064179Have you tried not being poor?
>>729084673>540hz TN has something like 5 times the inverse ghosting of any old 165hz oled>even when said oled has more pixels to shift
>>729084673>shills unboxed
>>729086759>the data that you can easily cross reference is wrong because i'm mad that the most primitive lcd tech is getting destroyed in a benchmark
>>729087235dude just makes shit up to make companies he likes look goodhe likes oleds so oleds mysteriously win all of his monitor review benchmarks and he glosses over their flawssee also: why they are known as AMD unboxed
>>729087676cope all you want, you're still denying data you can't disprove because you're upset about tn garbage being made redundant
>>729088038based flying spaghetti monster believer
>>729088204feel free to buy that zowie shitcan and compare response times to a bottom of the barrel oledif you're going to be so contrarian you should have some solid foundations and not just butthurt
>>7290641792160p on Max Settings
>>729087676>see also: why they are known as AMD unboxedI don't deny they had a bias, but that denies the reality that everyone else had an nVidia bias. Because the way the HU bias manifested was by using games and settings that simply WEREN'T favorable to nVidia. Next time you're looking at GPU reviews pause the video on the settings page and look carefully. Notice how everyone picks slightly odd looking choices for "high" and "ultra". Kind of like maybe they noticed that their favorite cards weren't quite leading the charts the way they wanted and would "massage" the settings until they did?When DX12 and Vulkan appeared on the scene it was outrageous. AMD was ahead of the game on that (because vulkan was basically Mantle and DX12 really suited AMD's compute focussed design. Ironic that nVidia stole the crown with CUDA, but I digress) and all the usual shills were tripping over their own test methodology, desperate to get nvidia back into the lead, citing "unfair advantages" that AMD had and games that were "optimised for AMD" as reasons they had to drop them from the test. So "the way it's meant to be played" games are fine and representative, but the one time AMD wins, it has to be dropped?
>>729087676Cope.
>>729088381oh pray tell how popular ashes of the singularity isor strange brigade
>>729073361Higher FPS absolutely makes a huge bloody difference in games where continuously responding to objects that you're trying to track matters. Upgrading from 60FPS to something significantly higher it easily the single more cost effective and meaningful upgrade you can make if your monitor only does that.
>>729064179nigger
>>729066082He's playing in 900p with DLSS and thinks he's playing at 4k.It's unfortunately very common.
>>729064179I have a 4K 350 hz OLED for games that aren't RT heavy that my 4070ti Super can chew through. For really RT heavy games I use my 1440p panel for great frames on ultra. I think this is the perfect ecosystem
>no one ever says usecasereminder that higher response times are currently only useful for competitive games and nothing else, where the 1% lows do make a difference.sure you can make the case single player games are smoother and more enjoyable with higher FPS but most of them are made with consoles (ala locked 30fps) in mind. this will never change until the video game market changes (it wont).
>>729064179Frame rate counts in graphical quality, because it looks better on your eyes
>>729064179I will forever play 1080p if it means the fps can stay consistent at 90+>muh 4kand then the games play like ppt so troons and faggots can take pictures
>>729088914You are correct.
>>729064179Id rather play on 720p Ultra with motion blur turned off because fuck you, my shit never lags, never drops frames, & if that isnt an option then I'm refunding
If I can't max out a game and get good frames on my gtx 1650 then i'm not playing the game. No dev gets my money if they can't make their game run on hardware the majority of people own.
>>729079675Tests point to the human limit of perception being insanely high, over 330khz.There's practically no upper limit to how much higher refresh rates will improve a display, considering that the required refresh rate for perception of motion clarity increases almost indefinitely with speed. So no, 100hz isn't enough. Not 240hz. Not even 1000hz is anywhere near enough to meet the ability of human vision.
>>729090837>t. samsung display rep
>>729084673GtG is an utterly useless metric.
>>729091107>the speed at which a monitor changes colors is useless at measuring refresh rate compliance
>>729091732black to black is the proper way to measure refresh rate. GtG is marketing bullshit at best; it doesn't mean anything.
>>729064476Just use DLSS to get back to same internal render resolution and get better picture quality for free.4K is now the best gaming resolution regardless of performance as long as the game supports DLSS, though for desktop usage 1440p is better.
>>729091878>use a test that makes TN and MiniLED (fancy VA really) look badThere is a reason why nobody uses such a test.
>>729092137Yeah, like I said: GtG is marketing bullcrap designed to mislead consumers.
>>7290641791080p is really ass so I'd probably got with 1440p and lower settings.
>>729091878So all your games are pure black except for the moving objects? GtG is the most realistic benchmark.
I'm not moving to 4k until I can not only get a flagship card every 2 years but also a 16:10 monitor of that size tooGive me 16:10 or give me death
>>729092262>t. 2009 coma anon
>>729091878gray to gray tests how quickly every single color diode switches between being any shade of completely on to completely off and everything in betweenblack to black tests fucking nothing
>>729092216>>729092420GtG only measure response times between mid-tones, which are already by far the fastest a panel can do, so if a display has goot GtG but poor BtB then it'll be smeary dogshit regardless of what its GtG shows. It is a genuine snake-oil measurement designed to mislead.Monitor companies used to proudly declare their BtB response times right up until response times tanked with cheaper panel technology. The fact you can get "1ms" GtG response time displays with atrocious smearing issues says it all.
>>729092637it tests literally every possible color change and the results are then averagedit's objectively correct and your extreme cases are represented too
>>729064825>4k is a meme, I own a 4090, the second best GPU on the market, and it's not strong enough for comfy 4k.The main benefit is the vastly improved quality of the screen. Low res screens with big pixels suck. Running 1440p via DLSS on a 4k screen is going to look better than 1440p with DLAA on a 1440p screen, because having more physical pixels to work with improves image quality.Of course, being able to render native 4k on a 4k panel is obviously preferable if you have the performance headroom for it, but even if you don't it's not really smart to buy low res screens in pursuit of performance. That way of thinking is just ancient wisdom from the days when we ran everything at native res and upscalers were complete and utter dogshit, it's not really applicable anymore with how modern, demanding games render and run.
>>729074051Yes, new cope from poorfags and / or blind retards. You can look up the acuity limits of human vision, a 27" 4k monitor like 65cm / 2' away from your eyes like on a desk is still below the acuity limit of normal vision and people with above-average eyesight can do even better than that.
>get 4k screen>play games at a locked 30fpsfeels good man
>>729092768Are you a monitor salesman?As you're spewing more bullshit than a snake oil salesman.GtG; the clue is in the name. It measures the gray-to-gray transitions of a display. It does NOT include color transitions, dark transitions, bright transitions, or mixed transitions whatsoever. In fact, GtG was devised specifically to avoid measuring any of these relevant measurements on purpose - nearly all monitors can do gray-to-gray transitions far faster than anything else. Also, only around 40 frame transitions are even measured, so in no way are people testing the entire color range. That could not be more bullshit if you tried.
>>729093216>frame*per-pixel
>>729093216color transitions ARE INCLUDED in gray to gray transitionsit's literally just a faster way of testing for itsay you're going from pure 255 red to pure 255 greenthat would at worst be equal to the worse result between going from 0 to 255 and 255 to 0 on the gtg test
>>729064179>poorfag or poorfagI'm not poor though. The time for 27inch monitors is long gone bro. They're so cheap only poorfags buy them. Go big or fuck off
>>7290641794k low seetingst. 360hz 1440p oled fag1440p gives me eye cancer>1080lmaolmao even
>>729093464You're literally making this up.They DO NOT test red-only/blue-only/green-only (or any color) pixel changes. At all. They flash the pixels gray and change the brightness value and measure the luminance response time. R -> G / G -> B / B -> R / etc. is a completely different test; chromatics are checked separately.GtG is only checking brightness response times within a constrained range. It is a (flawed) luminance response time measurement.
>>729093904testing one diode going from 0 to 255 and the other from 255 to 0 is functionally indistinguishable from telling all of them to go from 0 to 255 or 255 to 0the point of using shades of grey is that it's using all the diodes so you're always getting the worst possible result that exposes the bottlenecksyour suggestion would in fact make it easier to lie
>>729065117I've got the 5k2k LG monitor and run all the games I play fine with a 5080. Diablo 4, PoE2, etc. PoE 2 actually looks and runs better using DLSR to simulate quasi-8k and then putting the in-game DLSS on performance. Some weird cope in this thread from guys stuck on 1080p monitors or who exclusively play competitive shooters in which all you care about is 200+ fps.
>>729094183>shades of grey>using all the diodesBull-fucking-shit. That is not how it works.Grays use equal values for R/G/B, with all subpixels rising by the same amount between luminance checks. This is why a monitor with "excellent" GtG response times can still have poor ghosting of specific color channels as GtG does not measure independent chromatic changes of a display's subpixels.>your suggestion would in fact make it easier to lieIt's not a suggestion. It's what they actually do for a "GtG test". That's why they are hot bullshit and tell you basically nothing a tall about a display's response times in real-world usage at all. It's fucking snake oil.
>>729093154She is fast.
>>729092839So you enjoy playing games in 30 fps huh
>>729094851>when you use your 540hz tn for the first time
>>729074224>4k mustard race!!!!111>dlss on
>>729094976>When you forget to cap your FPS
>>729094647>Bull-fucking-shit. That is not how it works.that's literally how it works, do you not know what hex color values are?>This is why a monitor with "excellent" GtG response times can still have poor ghosting of specific color channels as GtG does not measure independent chromatic changes of a display's subpixels.name the monitor then
>>729093904You are right in that the speeds of the subpixels aren't tested separately, but the GtG still represents the average of them. So GtG only tests average clarity, not potentially disproportionate smearing of one color. I guess giving response time tables for every subpixel might be useful. Though I rarely see that in motion tests either. Other smearing like black smearing you can literally see from the table, which includes tests from and to BLACK from every value. You can't see black smear from the averaged GtG number and you shouldn't base your monitor purchasing decision on that one single number. I guess you could use some kind of different average that amplifies the extremes to favor flat performance. Or calculate a deviation number in addition to the average.Your R -> G / G -> B / B -> R tests are completely unnecessary if you tested each color separately. Unless you can provide evidence that the the different subpixels transitions somehow affect each other, which could be worth ruling out, I doubt it though.
>try to play games older 1080p games on 1440p >waste hours on crashes and downloading .bat patches from Russian hackers to get widescreen supportlole
>>729095052Better than native.
>>729095232>1080p game>no widescreen supportuh-huh, any other nuggets of wisdom anon?
>>729095292It is. (this is in motion btw)
>When you realize your old 17" CRT had better PPI than your current 27" 1440p LCD
>>729095590>Anons are hating on DLSS >In reality they should hate TAA
>dude, you don't need to see your HUD
>>729095810The only people who hate DLSS are salty AMD users who are stuck with FSR which is STILL worse than dlss 1.0.
>>729095354some don't go beyond 1080p brainletif you want to play Bamham or SoM or games of that era you have to fuck with the config file and hope it workseven then the UI will probably look like shit
>>729095193>that's literally how it worksNo, it isn't.In a GtG test, a pixel is set to one gray level (equal R/G/B), then switched directly to another gray level. A photodiode measures how long the luminance takes to move between 10% and 90% of the final value. This measures only luminance transitions, NOT independent subpixel or color transitions in any way.>name the monitor thenA good amount of VA panels can achieve 1ms GtG yet have noticeable smearing (usually blacks, sometimes purples or other colors)>Samsung Odyssey G5>AOC C27G1>MSI Optix G27C4(etc.)>>729095224GtG is NOT a measurement of average subpixel speeds, it is a measurement of ONLY the combined luminance curve (NOT individual R/G/B curves), a photodiode used to measure GtG response can't even detect color channels, so the idea that it's in any way a means of measuring color response times was wholly incorrect. GtG is only measuring luminance. I cannot repeat this any more than I already have.>Unless you can provide evidence that the the different subpixels transitions somehow affect each otherI'm wasn't saying they affect each other, I'm saying that for a color response time test you'd need to use different sub-pixel channel values (e.g.; instead of [R-G-B] 40-40-40 -> 80-80-80, test 40-0-0 -> 0-0-40 as an example of R -> B color transition testing)**this is an oversimplification of how the test is carried out, but you get the pointHOWEVER!They DO, in fact, affect each other. But this post is already getting too long to give you a thesis about LCD technology as it is.GtG deliberately HIDES response time bottlenecks, rather than expose them as you seem to believe, because all subpixel move in equal measure to each other for each transition tested.I'm sorry, but you've been fucking swindled by these display panel makers if you believe otherwise. If you want to understand the response time of a display, GtG is the WORST way to measure it in just about every way.
The important part about any game is that it fucking works. I don't give a shit about the graphics if the game is actually fun.
>>729096393So you're telling me a number of old 1080p era games have no widescreen support?
>>729073435Touch grass
>>729096539all those monitors absolutely eat fucking shit in benchmarksdon't tell me that all this time you were dumb enough that you were talking about what's on the fucking box and not benchmarks
>>729096745they don't have 1440p support
>>729084779Lol because AMD cards are better? Fuck off poor fag
>>729073361Get your eyes checked.4K is only a meme because the strongest cards on the market can barely push 4K at a decent framerate.
>>729096968That wasn't the original statement. The claim was;>waste hours on crashes and downloading .bat patches from Russian hackers to get widescreen supportYou might need to brush up on what widescreen means.
>>729096857As far as I'm concerned, their GtG benchmarks are as made up as the figures on the box, the only difference is the manufacturer can cherry-pick the best range of values for their own tests while a benchmark should be using consistent-[ish] values on each display as indepent tests, but it is still a massively misleading way to measure response times of a display. GtG is in no way a reflection of how a display will be like for the user experience in the real world. BtB is a better measurement, but ideally you'd get full transition table benchmarks, MPRT, PCT, and color transition testing. >>729092768 is okay. >>729084673 is useless.GtG is plain misleading. Do you even know yourself what values reviewers tested with? Did they disclose this clearly themselves? Even if they do, GtG has so little relevance to a display's typical response time that it is not worth looking at.
>>729097059We've known 1080p is the limit outside of truly mega screens (like in a cinema) for the last 20 years anon.
>>729097393an average is still an average, any benefits it gives it also takes away, that's literally what an average iseven if we use the worst value on the gtg tableaccording oleds still absolutely fucking shred tnsan oled can portray up to 1250hz without any issues while a tn gets a pathetic score of 160hz with that atrocious 6ms timeif anything measuring it by the average HELPS non oleds and they still tear every other monitor apart
>>729098051why even post the garbage GtG chart when these much better charts exist?worse than graphics cards' benchmarks I swear
>>729092839Nah bro DLAA 1440p looks better than Perf 4kAnd going for a 4k screen basically locks you out of high framerate gameplay unless you want to lower you res and fuck up you're PPI if you're on a 32 incheswhereas 1440p is guaranteed high framerate in everything with the added benefit of being able to turn DLDSR on to run the game internally at 4k which give you an image quality pretty close to the real thing even if it's not the sameAnyway, comfortable 4k isn't even possible yet on demanding games. 6090 will be the first 4k card if it's at least 50% better than a 5090
>>729098530because most people know what an average means and would rather compare those between multiple monitors
>>729064179I play at 1080p on highest settings but limit my FPS to either 60 or 90 depending on the game.
>>729098832average of WHAT though?There's no values specified that were tested for in the chart. Again, it's a useless chart without the numbers. Which GtG transitions were used?
>>729064476just use fake frames
>>729099119at this point you're just fucking baiting, this test is good enough for anyone that isn't a semantics arguing midwitcall back to the original point, this absolutely does prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that oleds are stomping every other monitor tech, tn isn't actually capable of displaying high refresh rates due to the retardedly high overshoot and va and ips are all still copes compared to oled
>>729099828The graph itself is bait
>>729097607If youre 1440-phobic
>>729095232Just run integer scaled 4:3 like God intended.
>>729099912do you need them to include the minimum, mean and maximum like it's a fucking math class to stop nerding out about shit that doesn't matter?everyone understands what an average is in this context, stop cryingif they want to buy that specific monitor they can look up its individual graphs, the average absolutely does carry enough information to take a fat shit on shit monitorsi'm out
>do you need them to include the minimum, mean and maximum like it's a fucking math class
>>729098723>Nah bro DLAA 1440p looks better than Perf 4knot him but it quite clearly doesnt
>>729064179I recently spent 1.2k on a 4k oled monitor. I realize now, I should have spent the same amount on a monitor that maxes out the Hz. Aim for a good 600Hz monitor brokies.
>>729101942>needs 600hz of TN to get the same motion clarity as 240hz oled
>>729064825>4k is a meme, I own a 4090, the second best GPU on the market, and it's not strong enough for comfy 4k.The vast majority of people using 4k monitors don't play native 4k, they use fake 4k (via DLSS upscaling) which is still much better overall than 1440p. My fake 4k looks like ~1800p while running at ~1300p framerates. The only people who assume that you HAVE to play at native 4k to get good image quality are people still at 1080p/1440p.
>>729102124>fake 4k (via DLSS upscaling) which is still much better overall than 1440pDLAA 1440p native > 4k DLSS
>>729101942i have a 500hz oled and there's really no improvement over running it at 250hz with bfithe clarity improvement isn't there when you're looking at something more than white and black lines moving across the screeni'll hold onto it until they make a 4k 500hz ultrawide
>>729102249>DLAA 1440p native > 4k DLSSI don't think so. I have 4k and 1440p monitors side by side on my screen right now and the only scenario in which DLAA 1440p native looks better is if the 4K DLSS uses some really low input percentage like 35%. 4K DLSS just looks way more stable and clear.
>>729102329what monitors?
>>729102451ASUS Rog Strix XG27UCG is the 4k one, AOC Q27G3XMN is the 1440p one. They're both 27 inchers so it's possible that the high pixel density of the 4k screen is making DLSS artifacts hard to see, and if the 4k screen was a lot bigger I would see more artifacts. But as the kids would say that is NOT MY PROBLEM.
>>729064179because of the nature of real time rendering videogames disproportionately benefit from increased resolution, uncompressed 1080p video looks leagues better than the equivalent game footage .
>>729097187It doesn't have full widescreen support if it doesn't include 1440phylic
>>729064756>With modern games(TAA), a higher res does more to the visual quality then settings. Most games today also leverage uspcaling and 4k dlss looks better then native 1440p and a hell of a lot better then native 1080p with a higher fps then native 1440p, that at this point, if you play modern games, you are better off with a 4k monitorCan someone elaborate on this? I'm still running on the "always pick your native resolution with 144+ fps" oldfag adviceHow do modern games do it? Do you unironically think 1440p/4k on 30-60fps feels good?
>>729102980>game doesn't support meme resolution
>>729064179>clipped image>of a video>580x433
>>729104075>Can someone elaborate on this?Modern 3D games, especially all the graphically intense ones, are built around rendering methods that degrade in quality the less pixels you have to work with, the main rendering method being TAA. TAA looks perfect at 8k but looks garbage at 720p, even though 720p used to look fine before. A part of why 720p no longer looks fine isn't just TAA but because there's a LOT more detail in games now, and the effort required to make all that detail look good and stable has to be a lot more aggressive nowadays. Imagine if your shirt only has small stains and you can just wash it with soap, but if your shirt has serious greasy stains you need a much harsher detergent that slightly degrades your shirt's fabric over time.>I'm still running on the "always pick your native resolution with 144+ fps" oldfag adviceThings changed with how much upscaling technology has advanced. It used to be just a shitty cope and gimmick to be sure but at this point FSR4/DLSS (the respective main upscaling technology of the recent AMD/Nvidia cards) has gotten very, very good at faking higher resolutions, especially because they're more advanced and thorough than TAA. And the higher their target resolution, the better their results are. Hence why people don't really recommend FSR4/DLSS at 1080p because it's an obvious tradeoff (you get better performance for slightly worse image quality) but at 4k it's really recommended because the image quality degradation is much harder to notice.Nowadays if you have a modern GPU and want a better balance between image quality and performance, you're better off upscaling to a much higher resolution than you are playing at a lower native resolution. Of course that only makes sense if your GPU has the power, for example if your GPU struggles with native 1440p then it'll struggle trying to do 4K DLSS as well.
>>729104474hey fuck you that is massive my on 1366x768 screen
>>729075036>buy bigger screen>only to sit further awayWhat's even the point?
>>729066468>what is integer scaling
>no money for new pc >have to play on my 5 year old laptop>4k OLED display>can't play anything newer than 2-3 years old on 4kThe newest stuff still looks good on high/highest settings on 1080p...with 30-60fps on my 15 inch screen. I wish I'd switched to desktop again a couple of years ago. I would also have to get a monitor and don't want to downgrade from 4k oled
