4K Gaming is Dumb

[AlexTheGreatish]

Gaming companies keep pushing that "4K IS THE FUTURE!", and although it is, we think it's still a long ways off.

 

Buy a 1440P monitor
On Amazon: http://geni.us/xDaLsG
On Newegg: http://geni.us/JJB6aD

 

 

[DVA]

You guys vs the ones who like to play in 4k.

[Velcade]

144+Hz 1440p gaming is the best.  Don't @ me.

[Princess Luna]

3440x1440p > 4k

[VIVO-US]

4K gaming is dumb because it's not enough!  That's why we sent you guys the quad monitor mount for that 8K video a couple years ago.

[Ashley MLP Fangirl]

i play games on a 32" 1080p tv. it looks nicer to me than my 24" 1080p displays because it's bigger. i don't notice the difference in clarity at all. 

 

but, my eyes are quite crappy so i'm not the best person to judge clarity on a display. 

[AngryBeaver]

I think the 2080ti is finally bringing us very acceptable frame rates at 4k and it makes 1440p blistering fast, fast enough that you can get CPU bottlenecks now.

 

I think a LOT of this comes down to what type of game you are playing. If you are in an FPS then yes 1440p is probably a much better option, but games outside of that 4k can really add to the immersion and in the end that is what we are looking for.

[Fasauceome]

I think Linus' conclusion after the test subjects that high refresh rate is "hands down" the best isn't really substantiated by the feedback the test subjects gave.

[Kroon]

Who in their right mind use a 4k monitor with full AA?  The whole idea is that you can disable AA and get a better experience.

[September0451]

I posted this in the comments on the video, but here are my thoughts:

 

I have had 3 specific gaming setups in recent years. #1 was an Eyefinity setup 3x16:10, which was amazing. Then a cheap Korean 4K 40" monitor. Amaze balls, but even my GTX 1080 struggled to deliver 60fps in games even 2 to 3 years old at top settings. It had a subpar controller which hated switching resolutions, and if a game tried to force a res it didn't like the computer became completely unresponsive. It was really freaking awesome for document editing and content creation though, especially video editing. The MVA panel was almost as good as IPS for colour as well. I ended up switching to a Dell TN 144hz 1440p Gsync monitor because it was about $300 off through the IT store at my university. I don't think I'll go back to gaming on 4K, but I think if you really are a baller, and you want something over the top, VR or Surround is the way to go. if I could have 3 1440p high refresh rate g/freesync monitors that could keep up, with a stupid aspect ratio of 24:5 like I used to have with my 1050p's back in the day. I'd go for that over a high refresh 4K any time.  Or maybe an ultrawide monitor with a 1440 height and high refresh rate.

[mxk]

I'm sure that me and a lot of other people are just happy to run a game as long as we can see whats in front of us. 

[poochyena]

They could all tell the 4k monitor was better, but only half could tell the higher refresh rate monitor was better. Sounds to me the higher resolution monitor is better unless you are into a niche within a niche, which is gaming and competitive gaming.

[SolarNova]

Your argument is perfectly correct with small monitor sizes like those shown. Which you say was 24" for the 1080p, those other to looked like 27.

 

However, i would argue that 32" is a much better screen size for those still using 'monitor' sized displays. At that size, and especialy above , the difference between the resolutions is much more defined.

 

Also, i would argue you testing was flawed.

 

In my opinion you should have run all the games at the SAME resolution. As rendering resolution makes a bigger difference than screen resolution.

if you were to run a game at 4k using a 1080p display, then run the same game at 4k on a 4k display, the difference is harder to notice.

Infact i would have tested that 1st.

 

Using 3 1080p displays and rendering each at a different resolution from 1080p to 4k. I bet everyone could tell the difference and if told each screen is a different resolution would presume each was an actualy 1080p, 1440p, and 4k display. Though the problem with running 1440p on a 1080p display is the amount of interpolation present.

 

Then do another test where u run the games all at 4k but the screens at different resolutions.

 

 

Anecdotal i know, but... I run some games at 4k on my 1080p display, so long as my GPU can keep up, and its a vast improvment over running native 1080p.

 

 

 

 

[BachChain]

The human eye can't see more than 30 PPI anyway

[emosun]

to say "4k gamming is dumb"..... then literally admit that it depends on the user or the game..... was rather unnecessary

Literally any RTS benefits from resolution over frame rate

1 hour ago, Kroon said:

Who in their right mind use a 4k monitor with full AA?  The whole idea is that you can disable AA and get a better experience.

yeah i like how they skimmed over that

I only use a gtx 1060 , but i play gta 5 in 4k. works fine with the AA off and looks better than 1080 with the AA on.

[iLostMyXbox21]

haha, jokes on you i game in 4k on my ps4 slim

[Egg-Roll]

James and Denises responses tho 

[jones177]

The big problem is for 4k gamers is that the monitor industry forces us to run 60hz. To go higher costs $2000.00.

 

I need a 100hz 32" 4k monitor. That is what my hardware can handle. If I played competitive games a 120hz monitor would do. 144hz at 27" for $2000.00 is just silly.

 

A better video would be about why there isn't more alternatives to 4k 60hz when there is hardware to support it.    

 

RTX sales give a good Idea of what gamers are willing to spend on hardware for either high pixel density or high refresh rate. It is the monitor manufacturers that are getting it wrong.  

 

[m2234323]

For me i  am just find on 60 fps my miain game is a open sand box game that is 60 fps limit since doint 120 in some save you can evne keep 30  and it can be wiht the fast cpu it is a game that lvoe the fast single core you can get 

[TechyBen]

4 hours ago, fasauceome said:

I think Linus' conclusion after the test subjects that high refresh rate is "hands down" the best isn't really substantiated by the feedback the test subjects gave.

Some people you could poke in the eye with a cat, and they would say "I don't see the difference/the cat scratching my face is better". I agree, it's mainly down to preference, but some people just *don't care*. However, even if 7.9 billion people don't care they eat mud, I'm still having chips instead. XD

[an actual squirrel]

There are two things, antialiasing and motion blur, that disproportionately benefit lower resolutions and lower refresh rates respectively. So for the sake of simplicity, let's assume they cancel each other out and not open this can of worms about what graphics processing can make up for what display limitation.

[AlexTheGreatish]

3 minutes ago, an actual squirrel said:

There are two things, antialiasing and motion blur.

Motion blur is the worst thing to happen to gaming.

[an actual squirrel]

10 minutes ago, AlexTheGreatish said:

Motion blur is the worst thing to happen to gaming.

AA and motion blur are analogous to each other. AA is for a lack of spatial resolution and motion blur is for a lack of temporal resolution. Digital foundry did a video recently championing motion blur. I think the gist is that if it's done well, it's great. 

 

[Sypwn]

I really want the Asus PG27UQ, not because I have a beastly setup that can handle 4K@120hz+, but because I want the choice to play some games (FPSs) at 144hz, and others (RPGs) at 4K, without physically swapping monitors. The HDR looks amazing as well.

 

I have a couple questions for anyone who has access to a PG27UQ. Reviews mention that not only do you have to overclock to get above 120hz, but you lose HDR. Is this still the case for sub-4K resolutions? Does this monitor support 1440p@144hz with HDR? Also, can you go above 144hz at 1080p?

[geo3]

60Hz is trash. I don't care how many Ks a monitor has if it's stuck at 60Hz.

720p 120Hhz > 4k 60Hz

 

 

 

5 hours ago, an actual squirrel said:

I think the gist is that if it's done well, it's great. 

Well they're wrong. Motion blur is a nausea inducing garbage feature that should never have existed.