You pay ton more money for a screen thats ppi is too dense to matter only to to pay ton more money for a pc to still run it at terrible framerate with lowered settings and fake frames.
Yes its pointless, most noticable is the low frame rate and lowered graphics to make the game playable.
High fps is more noticable and useful. Blind tests confirmed that, even the one ltt did.
2k could be argued is solid but even then the ppi is so dense already it does not really matter.
Edit: then again there is some research showing people preceive fps and ppindifferently so it may be 4k makes sense for some while for others its really overpriced 2k that no pc can run.
I play in 1080p so can’t comment on 4k but I can confirm fps doesn’t seem to affect me after 30fps. I don’t perceive a noticeable difference between 30, 60, 120fps. Haven’t played higher than that. I suspect 4k would probably look better to me than a higher fps though. But I’m happy with 30-60fps and 1080p so…
I went to 2k 100hz uw from 1080p 144hz.
I stopped noticing the increased framerate pretty quickly as the “mouse so smooth” effects wear off fast.
But the ultrawide huge fov is a massive plus. I don’t notice the resolution increase at all beyond lower frames and more text on screen in docs.
Laptops 4k is just 1080p with extra battery drain and worse performance.
Not arguing FPS here lol. Arguing 4k, which you can run in 144hz in a lot of games even without a 5090, you failed to mention if you had tried 4k which I assume you haven’t based on the switch to FPS instead of resolution
If I was conspiratorial I would say that 4K was normalized as the next step above 1440p in order to create a demand for many generations of new graphics cards. Because it was introduced long before there was hardware able to use it without serious compromises. (I don’t actually think it’s a conspiracy though.)
For comparison, 1440p has 78% more pixels than 1080p. That’s quite a jump in pixel density and required performance.
4K has 125% more pixels than 1440p (300% more than 1080p). The step up is massive, and the additional performance required is as well.
Now there is a resolution that we are missing in between them. 3200x1800 is the natural next step above 1440p*. At 56% more pixels it would be a nice improvement, without an outrageous jump in performance. But it doesn’t exist outside of a few laptops for some reason.
*All these resolutions are multiples of 640x360. 720p is 2x, 1080p is 3x, 1440p is 4x, and 4K is 6x. 1800p is the missing 5x.
It’s just kind of unnecessary. Gaming in 1440p on something the size of your average computer monitor, hell even just good ol’ 1080 HD, is more than sufficient. I mean 1080 to 4k sure there’s a difference, but 1440p it’s a lot harder to tell. Nobody cares about your mud puddle reflections cranking along in a game at 120 fps. At least not the normies.
Putting on my dinosaur hat for a second, I spent the first decade of my life gaming in 8/16 bit and 4 color CGA, and I’ve probably spent the last thirty years and god only knows how much money trying to replicate those experiences.
I mean I play at 1440p and I think it’s fine… Well it’s 3440x1440, problem is I can still see the pixels, and my desk is quite deep. Do I NEED 4k? No. Would I prefer if I had it? Hell yes, but not enough to spend huge amount of money that are damaging to an already unrealistic market.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
No Let’s Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates.
(Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources.
If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
What’s wrong with 4k gaming? Just curious
You pay ton more money for a screen thats ppi is too dense to matter only to to pay ton more money for a pc to still run it at terrible framerate with lowered settings and fake frames.
4k is a pure scam.
Have you tried 4k? The difference is definitely noticeable unless you play on like a 20" screen
Yes its pointless, most noticable is the low frame rate and lowered graphics to make the game playable. High fps is more noticable and useful. Blind tests confirmed that, even the one ltt did.
2k could be argued is solid but even then the ppi is so dense already it does not really matter.
Edit: then again there is some research showing people preceive fps and ppindifferently so it may be 4k makes sense for some while for others its really overpriced 2k that no pc can run.
I play in 1080p so can’t comment on 4k but I can confirm fps doesn’t seem to affect me after 30fps. I don’t perceive a noticeable difference between 30, 60, 120fps. Haven’t played higher than that. I suspect 4k would probably look better to me than a higher fps though. But I’m happy with 30-60fps and 1080p so…
I went to 2k 100hz uw from 1080p 144hz. I stopped noticing the increased framerate pretty quickly as the “mouse so smooth” effects wear off fast. But the ultrawide huge fov is a massive plus. I don’t notice the resolution increase at all beyond lower frames and more text on screen in docs.
Laptops 4k is just 1080p with extra battery drain and worse performance.
Not arguing FPS here lol. Arguing 4k, which you can run in 144hz in a lot of games even without a 5090, you failed to mention if you had tried 4k which I assume you haven’t based on the switch to FPS instead of resolution
Fair.
4K is an outrageously high resolution.
If I was conspiratorial I would say that 4K was normalized as the next step above 1440p in order to create a demand for many generations of new graphics cards. Because it was introduced long before there was hardware able to use it without serious compromises. (I don’t actually think it’s a conspiracy though.)
For comparison, 1440p has 78% more pixels than 1080p. That’s quite a jump in pixel density and required performance.
4K has 125% more pixels than 1440p (300% more than 1080p). The step up is massive, and the additional performance required is as well.
Now there is a resolution that we are missing in between them. 3200x1800 is the natural next step above 1440p*. At 56% more pixels it would be a nice improvement, without an outrageous jump in performance. But it doesn’t exist outside of a few laptops for some reason.
*All these resolutions are multiples of 640x360. 720p is 2x, 1080p is 3x, 1440p is 4x, and 4K is 6x. 1800p is the missing 5x.
Somehow 4k resolution got a bad rep in the computing world, with people opposing it for both play and productivity.
“You can’t see the difference at 50cm away!” or something like that. Must be bad eyesight I guess.
Does it really help gameplay on the average monitor? If it is a fast paced game Im not even paying attention to pixels
It’s just kind of unnecessary. Gaming in 1440p on something the size of your average computer monitor, hell even just good ol’ 1080 HD, is more than sufficient. I mean 1080 to 4k sure there’s a difference, but 1440p it’s a lot harder to tell. Nobody cares about your mud puddle reflections cranking along in a game at 120 fps. At least not the normies.
Putting on my dinosaur hat for a second, I spent the first decade of my life gaming in 8/16 bit and 4 color CGA, and I’ve probably spent the last thirty years and god only knows how much money trying to replicate those experiences.
I mean I play at 1440p and I think it’s fine… Well it’s 3440x1440, problem is I can still see the pixels, and my desk is quite deep. Do I NEED 4k? No. Would I prefer if I had it? Hell yes, but not enough to spend huge amount of money that are damaging to an already unrealistic market.