1440p max settings vs 4K high?

[Azakius]

In the process of picking up a new monitor… when I can get one in stock!! 
 

anyway, I’ve got an i9 9900k and RTX 3080, would you say it’s worth getting a 4K hdr monitor? Or look at 1440p hdr? I can max most games on 1440p and get over 100 FPS, but 4K is a bit up and down, so might need to lower some graphics settings to maintain that 60+.

 

 

[SkilledRebuilds]

Kinda easy to answer...
Games will get more demanding over time, at same resolutions we now have.

How Often DO YOU. upgrade your GPU.?
If its not within 2 generations each time or less, I'd be going for 1440p over 4K if you stick with a GPU for 3-6years+
But if you buy the best or near best every couple (18months up to 3 years) generations you can stay on top of 4K with High-Ultra mixtures of settings.

4K 60-120Hz (less over time with more demanding games and features/setttings)

or

1440p 60-180Hz (less over time with more demanding games and features/setttings)

[Chris Pratt]

1440p is still the sweet spot. It's relatively easy to render, especially for a 3080, you can get fantastic monitors for under $1000, and you really won't be able to notice a difference between that and 4K when gaming at the distance that's typical to sit from a monitor.

 

4K is obviously going to be harder to drive, and if you do need to drop the resolution for any reason, you're going to have to rely on DLSS, FSR or in game temporal upscaling, assuming the game even supports any of those. Otherwise, the image will look like crap. Also, a good gaming 4K monitor is going to be $1500+ right now, since they're a relatively nascent category.

[Morrie Sells Wigs]

1440p for me. 

[ImperialKnightErrant]

For now 1440p max everything at high frame rate wins. You'll have a much better overall experience. 

 

I don't understand the obsession with 4K, you have to make too much sacrifices to drive 4K at a decent frame rate. 

 

It's the same as a high resolution camera does not mean a better camera. 

 

RTX 3080 is perfectly positioned to milk every ounce of performance from a 1440p 165Hz monitor

[NekoBubbles]

4K in short is just an overrated and pretty much just a chad flexing thing. Its not actually impressive unless you have like a 100 Inch display of it.

 

Not to mention 4K sets most PC's to be pretty much similar to a console in terms of FPS which isn't that special considering its probably going to get out played by the Xbox 2 and PS6 XD. 

[Montana One-Six]

15 hours ago, NekoBubbles said:

4K in short is just an overrated and pretty much just a chad flexing thing. Its not actually impressive unless you have like a 100 Inch display of it.

 

Not to mention 4K sets most PC's to be pretty much similar to a console in terms of FPS which isn't that special considering its probably going to get out played by the Xbox 2 and PS6 XD. 

Don't agree at all.

4K isn't overrated if you want picture clarity. 4K is very impressive even on lower sized screens. On 27inch for example shit gets very clear, its very hard to distinguish between pixels and which also means you really don't need any performance heavy AA running. Even on screens smaller than that it is impressive. I have a phone with a 4K screen that is 4 years old and I still haven't seen a phone that comes close to that one in terms of image clarity.

 

Yes 4K needs a lot of performance to be driven at higher FPS and is probably more for someone who plays single player games and not a good choice for competitive games right now. It's a long way until PS6 and the next Xbox and I would take a bet that by then 4K will be a lot more widespread than now. If you consider the average console generation lifespan, we probably are on RTX 5000 and RX 8000 (or whatever they will be called) by then anyway and 4K won't be an issue anymore.

[NekoBubbles]

2 hours ago, Montana16 said:

Don't agree at all.

4K isn't overrated if you want picture clarity. 4K is very impressive even on lower sized screens. On 27inch for example shit gets very clear, its very hard to distinguish between pixels and which also means you really don't need any performance heavy AA running. Even on screens smaller than that it is impressive. I have a phone with a 4K screen that is 4 years old and I still haven't seen a phone that comes close to that one in terms of image clarity.

 

Yes 4K needs a lot of performance to be driven at higher FPS and is probably more for someone who plays single player games and not a good choice for competitive games right now. It's a long way until PS6 and the next Xbox and I would take a bet that by then 4K will be a lot more widespread than now. If you consider the average console generation lifespan, we probably are on RTX 5000 and RX 8000 (or whatever they will be called) by then anyway and 4K won't be an issue anymore.

The next xbox/PS6  will probably be able to do 8K is my only point and current monitors at 4k stuggle to out do current console not to mention aren't imo worth the extra 500 to 2k+ usd.

 

A 1440P at 120 to 144 HZ is gonna save you a lot of money you could use on storage rather than a 4K resolution screen that surely is going to probably become obsolete as we are pretty much on the edge of going up to 8k resolutions. If you're going to dish out cash imo for a display ya may as well just skip the 4K and just go to 8K. XD. 4K barely looks better than a 1440. Don't take my word for it XD. If you want any real improvement skip 4K and just skip to 8K >.> and get a 3090 if you are after the best of the best XD. 

 

Heck even LTT struggled to see any improvements of 4K. XD. 

 

 

[GamerDude]

My monitor has a res of 3840x1080 (exactly half 4K) and due to this, my 6900 XT can run games at max setting for a good while longer than, say, at 4K. So, for me, the answer is simple, go for 1440P. Some games chew up VRAM like bad muthas, especially at 4K, so 1440P would ensure that VRAM doesn't become a factor with the GPU performance. BTW< when you say 1440P, are you talking about 2560x1440 or 3440x1440? Just being curious as both are definitely below 4K anyway.