Is 4K gaming actually worth it?

[Hi P]

I've been using QHD (1440p) monitors since 2012, I can't go back to 1080p that's for sure, but what about 4k?

 

Personally speaking, 1440p feels like the sweet spot, I currently have an Asus TUF Gaming VG27AQ and if I were to upgrade it would probably be for a better 1440p monitor.

 

What are the benefits of gaming at 4k?

 

In your personal opinion, is it worth it?

[Zando_]

5 minutes ago, Hi P said:

What are the benefits of gaming at 4k?

More pixels if you zoom in (useful for screenshots if you need to crop at all) or are a high res texture enjoyer. 

5 minutes ago, Hi P said:

In your personal opinion, is it worth it?

Yes, thus why I have a 4K monitor. 

[Andrewtst]

For 27" (Wide), 34" (Ultrawide) and 49" (Super Ultrawide) sweet spot resolution is 1440p.

 

4K is worth if

• Plan upgrade to 32" (Wide) and above.
• Your GPU can handle it if you are use it for gaming. For productivity wise shouldn't have any issue. 
• Bigger working space for productivity.
• Sharpen and clarity text. 

[varrys]

I had a 25" 60Hz 1440p monitor, an Asus. I upgraded to an Asus ROG Swift (PG 27AQ) with 144Hz and HDR400 (minimum, but better than none). Is it a better monitor than what I had? Sure. But do I feel it's leaps and bounds better than what I had? Not really, though I'm not a FPS guy so the extra Hz doesn't matter as much to me as some. 

 

If you're going to make a 1440p upgrade, I would suggest getting HDR600 or better, or going ultrawide. If you go for 4K, you need a strong GPU to go with it. 

 

I have a 3080, and I'm strongly considering a 3840 x 1600 ultrawide for both work productivity and some immersive gaming. 

[xg32]

4k itself usually has higher pixel density, 27inch 1440p is 108pp, 27inch 4k is 163ppi and 32inch 4k 138ppi. The difference even between 138 and 163, is noticeable, but ppi alone isn't worth the pricetag and the gpu horsepower to drive the thing imho.

 

for me in order of importance a monitor has:

 

95-100% adobe rgb (the VG27AQ doesn't cover srgb)

high refresh without ghosting

high ppi

hdr (local dimming, oled)

 

The first 2 affects the overall image quality of the experience much more than the last two given the price tag

 

ie i'd much rather have a wide gamut 1440p 165hz monitor than just any 4k monitor if budget was tight

 

if a MSI MAG274QRF-QD+6700xt for 700usd is the "starting point"

 

then the next tier up would be the QD-OLED + maybe a better gpu which can run up to 2000usd (these 2 monitors are the best bang for buck on image quality atm, neither is 4k)

 

The decision to upgrade my viewing experience does not start at 4k, on top of that most 4k monitors need hdmi 2.1 or DSC which still has driver/issues in windows, and a next gen gpu is recommended for 4k high refresh, It's not ready yet imho, alot of jank to work out.

 

If all you want is a m28u to plug ur pc and console into though, by all means, try it out.

[Zando_]

8 minutes ago, xg32 said:

the gpu horsepower to drive the thing

I use a 2060 Super. 

8 minutes ago, xg32 said:

The decision to upgrade my viewing experience does not start at 4k til much further into the decision, on top of that most 4k monitors need hdmi 2.1 or DSC which still has driver/issues in windows, and a next gen gpu is recommended for 4k high refresh, It's not ready yet imho, alot of jank to work out.

I guess it basically comes down to resolution vs refresh rate as the priority. 4K60 does not need that port bandwidth. It can come down to games you play as well, for me most of what I play is either old and runs fine, or new and supports DLSS so the internal render resolution is a lot lower than 4K, without sacrificing much detail. I think the only game I play a lot that requires dropping to 1440p is Star Citizen, and that's a poorly optimized title. 

[Blue4130]

I use a 65" 120 hz screen. 4k looks much better than 1080 in my case. (on games that I can run at 4k)

[Alex Atkin UK]

Everyone has made all the good points already, especially the idea that its not worth going 4K if you end up with a poorer screen than 1440p.

 

Its why I went 4K first for the TV and its where I primarily game.  I did later upgrade to 4K on desktop as well, not for gaming, though I ended up still getting a decent gaming monitor there as I find high refresh rate makes even productivity use a lot more comfortable.

 

So yeah, its not really something anyone else can answer.  Personally I hate how visible pixels are at 1440p, its just more comfortable to read at a higher PPI and photos look a whole lot more seamless too.  As for gaming, older games look a lot less dated at 4K and games that are trying to be photo-realistic get a lot closer to achieving it.

 

It was Forza Horizon 4 that really convinced me I needed a 3080, as 4K looks so much more real, but high frame rate FEELS so much more real, I was struggling to compromise to one or the other.  Plus my reaction times aren't the greatest, so higher frame rate works better for me there too.

[Stahlmann]

For me personally it's worth it. But mostly because my "monitor" is 42" big. It's all about PPI (pixels per inch). I'd say as soon as you're looking at buying 32" and larger, then you should consider 4K. 1440p is borderline useable at 32" imo. 90 PPI is pretty much the lowest acceptable PPI for me. Everything lower will just result in blurry text. I try to stay at least around 110 PPi at a minimum, the higher the better.

[Doobeedoo]

It sure is but depends from person to person, it's extra investment and also need fast GPU too.

Extra sharpness is great. Really monitors are still the most screen-door effect compared to anything else; laptops, phones, TVs. Higher PPI is really needed so hopefully 4K becomes the min standard. 

We're seeing these new giant monitors and they all have horrid PPI most not even 4K for such sizes and those 4K are alreaddy getting too big even for that res. At that point 8K should be considered, but yeah.

I'll wait before I upgrade, I want like 32" no more that's 4K but not LCD oh nonono. Soon we'll see more.

[jones177]

I started doing 4k in 2015 at first for work but as soon as I saw my modded games at 4k I could not stop using it.

10 hours ago, Hi P said:

What are the benefits of gaming at 4k?

The benefits in games is seeing more detail if it is to be had. 

 

I find the detail in sims, building games and modded games.  

I don't find it in most vanilla games.

 

11 hours ago, Hi P said:

In your personal opinion, is it worth it?

It has been worth it to me but it has been expensive.

My first 4k gaming rig had 2x GTX 980 ti in SLI and that was replaced by 2X GTX 1080 tis in SLI. Then it was a single RTX 2080 ti with a 24/7 overclock. 

Now it is 3090 tis that replaced 3080 tis and with them for the first time since I started doing 4k I am satisfied.

 

[IPD]

I got my 1080 Ti setup in 2017-2018 timeframe, and I haven't used anything but a 40" 4k60 (16:9) the entire time.  1440p would be vile at 40".  1080p would be vomit-inducing.

 

I will always adapt my game to the monitor and hardware I run.  I will NEVER shortchange myself on a monitor to "right-size" myself to hardware or a game.  2160p hasn't always been the most idea, but that's more due to teething problems than anything.  MS didn't do scaling worth a shit.  Games were never optimized to run at 4k and would have a performance hit that is in no way realistic for 4k vs 1080p or even 1440p.  Higher resolutions without AF/AA will always be > lower resolutions with AF/AA.  I'll take higher resolution,  blob shadows and low particle effects any day...over lower resolution with hyper-realistic shadows and max particle effects.

 

Besides, how many games are you NOT running in full-screen?  And how many of those running in full-screen are really going to look markedly worse on a 2160p screen while not running at 2160p--vs running at native resolution on a lower resolution display?  Or are you even going to notice?