1080p ultra vs 4k low

[BARBOUSS]

Hi guys i was just wondering which side you preferer, let s give an examplein  an 1080p native monitor with 24inch

 

what do you think should look better 4k low (UPSACLLING WITH DSP) or the 1080p ultra settings?

Edited April 3, 2023 by BARBOUSS

[jaslion]

Neither.

 

At 27 inches you really want 1440p and to make a correct build around that so it doesn't suck

[SquintyG33Rs]

1440p high

[Hinjima]

same as everyone here haha. 27'' 1440p baby!  But if I had to go 1080p ultra vs 4k low I'd definitely go 1080p ultra 144fps++

[WereCat]

What's the point of 4k if you're going to play on Low? 

So you can admire the lack of detail in detail? 

[cmndr]

It'll depend on the title

90+% of titles play just fine on high settings at 4K. These just happen to be OLD. 

For new titles... 1440p high is a reasonably sweet spot in many cases. There's often little benefit to going for the highest of settings. 
There's also a smaller benefit for going from 1440p -> 4K than there is going from 1080p -> 1440p

Ideally you're also kind of dialing things in on a case by case basis. Not all settings are made equal. 

[Fasauceome]

34 minutes ago, BARBOUSS said:

what do you think should look better 4k low (UPSACLLING WITH DSP) or the 1080p ultra settings?

When it comes to high resolution vs low resolution, all that really matters is pixel density. Would you really be satisfied with a 22" monitor at 4k resolution?

[Princess Luna]

Or be the weirdo with a 34 inch 3440x1440p ultrawide display :3

 

Well I'd go with 1080p over 4k personally if I had to choose (ideally settle in the in-between with 1440p).

[NobleGamer]

Before anyone else suggests 1440p (which I prefer too), is there a specific reason you thought of 1080p and 4K only?

 

To be fair:

• 1080p to 4K has one to one scaling
• 1440p to 4K is NOT one to one scaling, it's 1 to 2.25 pixel ratio.

So is there a specific reason you would want to ensure one to one scaling?

[SquintyG33Rs]

6 minutes ago, Fasauceome said:

When it comes to high resolution vs low resolution, all that really matters is pixel density. Would you really be satisfied with a 22" monitor at 4k resolution?

i really don't like that argument. yeah you don't really want a 1080p 40" display for your computer when you're going to be sitting 1m/3ft away from it but every single resolution&size combination sold in monitors is arguably fine depending on where you sit and what you expect.

 

many people like smaller screens and want the extra density because they sit extremely close (like less than 30cm/1ft) and 4k at 22" is the only way you won't see pixels sticking your head inside the screen. I don't advice using a screen like that but for some reason people have often wanted that... Apple doesn't follow their own retina standard for a long long time now. they've moved to having everything be much denser.

 

on the flip side I had a 1080p ultrawide 34" for a long time and the only reason I upgraded to 1440p 34" was because i wanted a better refresh rate monitor and i might as well get resolution sweetspot too because they don't make many options that are in between. but I don't really see a big difference in pixel quality/aliasing... you can clearly see that the pixels are much smaller almost invisible between the two. but in a game with Aliasing artifacts on screen they look almost the same on both. you still get the "jaggies". the games have limited asset resolution and they only disappear when you enter absurd pixel densities.

[SquintyG33Rs]

1 minute ago, NobleGamer said:

Before anyone else suggests 1440p (which I prefer too), is there a specific reason you thought of 1080p and 4K only?

 

To be fair:

• 1080p to 4K has one to one scaling
• 1440p to 4K is NOT one to one scaling, it's 1 to 2.25 pixel ratio.

So is there a specific reason you would want to ensure one to one scaling?

you're right. (but i don't see what 1440p to 4k would be. like if he plugs in a device that only outputs 1440p? the xbox series S?)

 

thought it's rarely brought into question anymore with modern upscaling because you don't even set your game at half resolution or anything anymore. you just turn on DLSS or FSR and you don't need to know what the internal to external ratio is at all it just deals with it smoothly.

[waddledee]

1080p >>>

 

4k isn't worth it if you need to lower graphics settings that far anyway

[ApolloX75]

I've done all three levels. 1080p Ultra 144Hz, 4K High 60Hz and 1440p Ultra or High 144Hz.

 

Best out of the three is 1440p hands down, especially at 27" and if you add GSYNC or FreeSync2 into the mix and a splash of good HDR, it's heavenly. That's where I'm at currently. 

 

I did like 4K for productivity though, so much screen to use.

[Mihle]

Firstly, in my experience, if you can run a game on 1080p Ultra, you do not need to turn it down to low to be able to run 4k, medium ish would be fine. (Depends on the game tho).

 

Secondly, on that scenario I would have chosen something in between.

[Slizzo]

15 hours ago, Princess Luna said:

Or be the weirdo with a 34 inch 3440x1440p ultrawide display :3

 

Well I'd go with 1080p over 4k personally if I had to choose (ideally settle in the in-between with 1440p).

There's dozens of us!

 

Half my friend group games at 3440x1440 including me. But I understand people that want to stick to 16:9.  I agree, though. 27" 1440P is the way to go in terms of cost/performance/eye candy.

[derr12]

2 hours ago, Slizzo said:

There's dozens of us!

 

Half my friend group games at 3440x1440 including me. But I understand people that want to stick to 16:9.  I agree, though. 27" 1440P is the way to go in terms of cost/performance/eye candy.

*cries in 49" uber-wide 1440p + 5700xt

[NekoBubbles]

On 4/4/2023 at 12:45 PM, derr12 said:

*cries in 49" uber-wide 1440p + 5700xt

Why not the comfy 32 inch middle eye candy screen

[derr12]

18 hours ago, NekoBubbles said:

Why not the comfy 32 inch middle eye candy screen

it made sense for my work related activities.  i figured, might as well get one that is great at all things. I came from an HP omen 34", but still needed a second screen. 

[WallacEngineering]

On 4/3/2023 at 4:22 PM, BARBOUSS said:

Hi guys i was just wondering which side you preferer, let s give an examplein  an 1080p native monitor with 24inch

 

what do you think should look better 4k low (UPSACLLING WITH DSP) or the 1080p ultra settings?

 

Nah, definitely go 1440p like others are saying.

 

4K gaming is essentially useless on standard-sized monitors.

 

A while back when 4K was a new thing, studies were done and found that on anything smaller than a 50" screen, they human eye with perfect 20-20 vision cannot tell the difference between 1440p and 4K with the face barely even 18" from the screen.

 

1440p High or Ultra settings is basically the best game fidelity physically possible on small screens and Standard-sized monitors.

[Quackers101]

1440p is a good middle ground, but it also sucks. If thinking about scaling compared to 1080 and 4K, 1440p is an odd place to scale for, some content not the best. But it works fine for most, and if using it just for visuals, not about something to be "correct" like certain content creation.

 

4K vs 1080p, really depends on the resolution you want, your eye sight, then to be able to run 4K just going with 1080p since the scaling is better.

At least 4K is getting cheaper, but then comes HDR and everything else, which is another beast to handle for monitors, also the speed (hz) for 4K, 120-144hz. 4K is a lot sharper and sharper than 1080p, which can be really nice for some, even better if crancking up details. faster speed solutions at lower resolution for PvP than solo titles, also the the most recent OLED/QD-OLED which could do both, but own drawbacks.

 

So for most people 1080p is fine 25" (maybe 27 can work), 1440p/4k at around the 27"+

Edited May 4, 2023 by Quackers101