4k

[Yoola]

I'm wondering why people still refuse 4k so much...? 

Considering the fact that you can always lower the resolution on games that you really can't run in 4k seems like a pretty good deal to me. Or do they really look that bad when they're downscaled to any non-native resolution?

Also it's worth mentioning I'm not a competitive player so 60Hz sounds just fine to me same as medium settings. Also those higher refresh rate 1400p screens are 700€+ here while I can grab a 4k 60Hz screen for ~250€. I plan to replace one of two my 1080p screens with a 4k panel which would be powered with GTX 1070. Is there anything else I should take into account?

[PlayStation 2]

People don't really refuse 2160p so much as that people feel better off buying high end 1080p/1440p monitors rather than a mid-range 2160p monitor.

[ProjectBox153]

A lot of times you can get far better 1080p displays (as far as features and such) than you can with 4K for the same money. Stuff like higher refresh rates and inputs, etc. 

 

[Yoola]

1 minute ago, Jamiec1130 said:

A lot of times you can get far better 1080p displays (as far as features and such) than you can with 4K for the same money. Stuff like higher refresh rates and inputs, etc. 

 

I'm currently running 2 1080p IPS displays and they feel fine to me. Don't feel the need for higher refresh rate as I'm really not a competitive gamer. Just feeling like I could use more pixels for all the productivity I do. 

[ProjectBox153]

2 minutes ago, Yoola said:

I'm currently running 2 1080p IPS displays and they feel fine to me. Don't feel the need for higher refresh rate as I'm really not a competitive gamer. Just feeling like I could use more pixels for all the productivity I do. 

For productivity, 4K is well worth it. There are times where I want to use my TV rather than my monitor because of the higher pixel count, but for gaming I don't see it as necessary. I'd much rather have a higher refresh rate. 

[Guest]

It's mainly gamers who play multiplayer shooters such as CSGO, H1Z1 or Battlegrounds that don't like 4K screens, yet. They are just better of with a 1080p/1440p screen with 144hz. 

 

4K is great for single player games, movies and productivity. 

[Badger906]

i have nothing against 4k displays. i had one for about a year, but i upgrade to a 3440x1440p ultrawide which is better in every way! and about 40% less demanding.

[DnFx91]

2 hours ago, Yoola said:

I'm wondering why people still refuse 4k so much...? 

Considering the fact that you can always lower the resolution on games that you really can't run in 4k seems like a pretty good deal to me. Or do they really look that bad when they're downscaled to any non-native resolution?

Also it's worth mentioning I'm not a competitive player so 60Hz sounds just fine to me same as medium settings. Also those higher refresh rate 1400p screens are 700€+ here while I can grab a 4k 60Hz screen for ~250€. I plan to replace one of two my 1080p screens with a 4k panel which would be powered with GTX 1070. Is there anything else I should take into account?

4K is still poo-poo'd because the PC community still can't get over the fact that there is more to computing than simply getting more frames in games. I've been rocking my PB287Q for a few years now and i still adore it. And you are exactly right, just turn down the settings on whatever games you cant run at 4k, the scaling isnt even noticable, besides its a first world problem, consoles have been scaling their outputs for years and nobody seemed to care all that much.

 

4k is clearly the better productivity option, and 120+hz/ultrawide is clearly better for gaming, however with that said, 4k does gaming better than 120+hz/ultrawide does productivity, if that makes sense ?