Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Adamzam

4K is it worth it

Recommended Posts

Posted · Original PosterOP

The title is pretty self explanatory but I have been pc gaming with 1080p on low to medium settings. I'm building a new computer and I want to know is it worth moving to 4K just for gaming, or is 4K more of a workstation thing for photoshop and apps like that because 4K monitors aren't cheap haha 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Adamzam said:

The title is pretty self explanatory but I have been pc gaming with 1080p on low to medium settings. I'm building a new computer and I want to know is it worth moving to 4K just for gaming, or is 4K more of a workstation thing for photoshop and apps like that because 4K monitors aren't cheap haha 

4k is just higher resolution, its nicer for gaming but not a necessity, its like owning a normal car and asking if you should upgrade to a super car, if you can afford it, and you think its worth it go for it, otherwise don't. Resolution is a personal thing for many people 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Again its a personal opinion.  Personally I'd rather game on a nice 4K TV than be forced to use a monitor for the higher refresh rate.  Although I'm sure in time that will change as TVs will (hopefully) start accepting higher refresh rates (as Linus has shown some that do already).

 

As someone who looks at a lot of photos, edits code, etc then 4K on my monitor was extremely useful, even though I game on the TV.  If you do any sort of research then being able to have several browser windows open on the same screen I find is WAS more useful than having multiple monitors.

So as others have said, its a very personal choice, nobody can answer it for you.  But it does make certain games look a lot more realistic due to removing most of the jaggies.  Even since the CRT days when I could have used 120Hz, I always went for resolution over refresh rate  (although I did use 75Hz back then due to CRTs being quite painful to look at any lower than that).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would highly recommend looking for a 1440p monitor with a high refresh rate to meet in the middle. I have a 24" Dell monitor that's 1440p with G-Sync and 144-165Hz and it's great. Would I like some sort of 4K OLED G-Sync ultrawide super-monitor? Yeah. Does such a thing exist and would I be willing to pay the cost? Absolutely not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having a 4k display on my laptop and desktop I'd say absolutely not for gaming but for things from content consumption to creation 4k is better than higher refresh rate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Going from 144Hz BenQ XL2720Z to Asus PG348Q 21:9 100Hz IPS is night and day. 

 

However, for extreme competitive I wouldn’t. I find myself looking more at some of the scenery/details in the game. 

 

If you like to play near maxed out at this resolution you’ll need a 1080 Ti. 


CPU: i7-5820k (4.7GHz/1.292V)                             RAM: Cruital Ballistix Sport 16GB DDR4                                Case: NZXT H440 Razer Sound: SVS Ultra Bookshelves / SVS SB13-Ultra / Marantz SR7008

 

Cooler: Dark Rock Pro 3                                         Storage: Samsung 840 Evo (500GB)  + WD Black (1TB)    PSU: EVGA G2-1000        M/KB: Razer Ouroboros / Blackwidow Ultimate Stealth 

 

 

Mobo: MSI X99S Sli Plus                                         GPU: EVGA 1080Ti Hybrid                                     OS: Windows 10               Monitor: BenQ XL2720Z / Asus PG348Q

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally say 4K is worth it. But as others have pointed out, that's just an opinion, and can't pass it off as a fact.

 

Others prefer lower resolutions + higher refresh rates, and that's perfectly okay.

 

Don't be that guy though. Had a pretty shitty time over on Twitter today.


The Storm: Intel Core i7-5930K | Asus ROG STRIX GeForce GTX 1080 Ti | Asus ROG RAMPAGE V EDITION 10 | EKWB EK-KIT P360 with Hardware Labs Black Ice SR2 Multiport 480 | 32GB (4x8GB) Dominator Platinum SE Blackout #338/500 | 480GB SATA 2.5" SSD + 3TB 5400 RPM NAS HDD + 8TB 7200 RPM NAS HDD | Corsair 900D | Corsair AX1200i + Black/Blue CableMod cables | Corsair ML120 2-pack 2x + NB-BlackSilentPro PL-2 x3

 

Starlight (upcoming successor to The Storm): AMD Ryzen 9 3950X 16-core CPU | Asus ROG STRIX GeForce GTX 1080 Ti | Asus ROG Crosshair VIII Hero Wi-Fi | EKWB EK-KIT P360 with Hardware Labs Black Ice SR2 Multiport 480 | 32GB (4x8GB) Dominator Platinum SE Blackout #338/500 | 480GB SATA 2.5" SSD + 3TB 5400 RPM NAS HDD + 8TB 7200 RPM NAS HDD | Corsair 900D | Corsair AX1200i + Black CableMod cables | Corsair ML120 2-pack 2x + ML140 2-pack

Spoiler

"So because they didn't give you the results you want, they're biased? You realize that makes you biased, right?" - @App4that

"Brand loyalty/fanboyism is stupid." - Unknown person on these forums

"Assuming kills" - @Moondrelor

"That's not to say that Nvidia is always better, or that AMD isn't worth owning. But the fact remains that this forum is AMD biased." - @App4that

"I'd imagine there's exceptions to this trend - but just going on mine and my acquaintances' purchase history, we've found that budget cards often require you to turn off certain features to get slick performance, even though those technologies are previous gen and should be having a negligible impact" - ace42

"2K" is not 2560 x 1440 

Link to post
Share on other sites

4k gaming on high or ultra setting requires a GTX 1080 ti. If you can only use medium to low settings the image will look better at 1440 ultra.

 

I play either with a 32" 4k monitor or a 3440X1440 widescreen monitor.

When I am playing on the 21:9 widescreen I am not wishing that I was playing on the 4k monitor. The difference in image quality is only noticeable if I put the two monitors side by side.

 

If you have a GTX 980/GTX 1060 or better, 1440 60hz should be the starting point. Form 1080 60hz to 1440 60hz the difference in image quality is huge. The difference in image quality between 1440 60hz & 4k 60hz not so much.

 

 


RIG#1 CPU: Intel i7 8086k | Motherboard: ASUS ROG Maximus X Hero | RAM: G.SKILL Ripjaws V Series 16GB DDR4 3200 | GPU: EVGA GeForce RTX 2080 ti FTW3 ULTRA | PSU: Corsair CORSAIR AX860W | Case: Cooler Master HAF 922 | Cooler: Noctua NH-D15 | SSD: Samsung 970 EVO 2TB


RIG#2 CPU: Intel i7 8086k | Motherboard: ASUS ROG Maximus X Hero | RAM: G.SKILL Ripjaws V Series 16GB DDR4 3200 | GPU: EVGA GeForce RTX 2080 ti XC | PSU: Corsair RMx1000W | Case: Cooler Master HAF X | Cooler: Noctua NH-D15 | SSD: Crucial MX300 2.5" 1TB  

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 Ways:

 

1. 4k 60 Hz. VERY sharp/crisp/clean image (clean = almost no more flickering, "aliasing stairs" etc), but only 60 Hz -> ideally 60 fps lock. Ideally with g-Sync, so you don't get a stutterfest as soon you drop below 60 fps.

 

2. WQHD (2560x1440) / 144+ Hz / G-Sync.

80% more Pixel than 1080p,but still far away from 4k. But thanks to 144+ Hz, much more responsive, and if you push higher fps, MUCH smoother.

 

4k is incredbily taxing, even with a 1080 ti getting 60 fps is very difficult on ultra. You might need to go down to High, or sometimes maybe even Medium, depending on Games.

WQHD is very easy to hit 60+ fps even with a 1070/1080~. You will hit 80-120 fps quite easy, even on high/ultra.

 

WQHD + 144 Hz is a good sweetspot in my Opinion. You can get good visuals (if you need more resolution, try using DSR, you can render easy to 4k (Factor 2.25), and even 5k (Factor 4.00), but you have the previlege in every game, to find your setting-sweetspot between Performance (fps) and Visual quality.

 

But it also depends what games you play^^ Many fast paced game? mostly slower RPG/strategy games?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×