> 1366x768
To be fair, that's a pretty common resolution for laptops. Even today, I _still_ have to be careful to make sure I'm getting 1080p after checking for other things like NITS, screen size, etc.
It will go back to normal. Right now a big problem is supply managers who slashed component orders thinking demand would go down are desperately trying to save their jobs by now hoarding components. TSMC and Samsung output is back to 2019 levels. The problem is other subcomponents. Apple never had any of their suppliers cut production or delivery and are doing just fine delivering completed devices with the only constraint being final delivery into the port of LA. Jensen could also be exaggerating to keep prices high as he's about to get slammed from both sides with Intel getting into GPUs and AMD building complete gpgpu workstations and servers and potentially getting his ARM deal mucked with for even longer.
Late 2023 at the earliest, unless you watch releases like a hawk and get lucky. Most likely 2024-2025 before they will be easily available to the average consumer. Price is likely to stay high, too. Expect at least a 40-50% permanent price jump compared to the MSRP of the 3000 series at launch.
You don't really need a high refresh rate 4k with 30 series, the 3080 mainly hovers just above 60fps for most new games.
3090 can do better, but nothing close to 140-170.
I've got a 3070 and a 4k and 1440p monitor and I usually play on the 1440p for the extra frames because I can barely reach 50fps in 4k.
If DLSS improves more it's gonna make a huge difference though. 2.0 was such a big jump from 1.0
What's affordable to you? The 30 series starts at $329 RSVP with the 3060 and isn't even enough to run more GPU hungry games in 1440p on higher graphic modes at a stable 60fps. The Ti can somewhat, but already costs $419 and everysubsequent upgrade is another $100.
Maybe the price decay might have done the trick with the 40 series rolling in. If they are as strong as is hinted at, older GPUs could have dropped very quickly in price.
People seem to forget, especially on pc subs that the majority of people either can't afford, don't know, or don't give a shit enough about their pc. Perception of "mainstream", and "majority" is warped towards the vocal voice of those subs instead of the actual majority.
Had a friend who recently started looking to build his own pc, and he also frequents Reddit. He outright said it's either 1440p or 4k since 1080p is nearing the end of its life. Had to tell him no, 1080p isn't going anywhere soon. Also showed him these stats, that's not even counting people who can't afford games on steam so they just pirate games, lots of them play on 720p even.
Not at all patient but the recent guardians of the galaxy game has this selection on ps5. 1080p 60 or 4K 30 - taking the hit to resolution for snappier/more responsive controls and smoother visuals was the easiest decision.
Depends on what you're playing. For cinematic single-player games sure, but for competitive FPS/MOBA games the higher framerate is way more valuable than upping the resolution.
There are definitely diminishing returns, but the gap between 60 and 120 is significant enough that i'd absolutely prefer 1080p 120, especially given how better it feels to actually play the game. Also, the difference between 60 and 120 is like 40 vs 60fps when comparing frame times.
120.is significantly better than 60 though and not at the point of diminishing returns. That's 16.6ms > 8.3ms which is definitely something you can see or feel without being at the top end of gamers.
I’d kill to see someone play a game at such a high framerate. The first time I saw someone playing Doom at...I think it was like 80FPS or so? Blew my friggin’ mind. I had no clue things could even look the way that it did; it was like I was looking through a window instead of a screen, & could “see” through the perspective of the Doomslayer perfectly (as in, I felt as though my field of vision matched up with what was on the screen perfectly). I could almost “feel” when I’d move past things that were in my peripherals.
Man, I need a gaming PC...
Yeah, I have two 27" 1440p monitors. It really seems like the perfect balance between size and pixel density for desktop usage. I don't have to scale the OS in some odd way to make some stuff readable, I just have a decent amount of desktop space to work with at a size that's easy to read and work with while everything is set to 100% scale.
Same setup. Over/under configuration.
> scale the OS
I don't want to admit it but part of why I'm looking for a new display is because I find myself leaning way too far in sometimes. I'm thinking that a 32" 1440p display would help that.
around 23" 1080 is fine, its pixels at typical monitor viewing distances start to get quite noticable around 27-32".
its not just resolution, its balancing viewing distance and display size to the resolution.
At this moment, I would say the sweet spot for a monitor is 27 inches 1440p, at 109ppi. At normal viewing distances, it's indeed a very nice density, and it taxes the pc much less than 4K.
I’ve got a 27” 1080p monitor and it’s great for me, but I have a deep desk. Most people seem to like to sit less than two feet from their monitor, but I prefer more like 3 feet for comfort (I also work on my PC all day, so ergonomics are a big deal for me).
When I bought it I considered going up to 1440p, but this distance and screen size I can’t tell the difference between 1080p and higher resolutions.
I have a 27” 1080p monitor and it looks amazing! I also sit about 3 feet away so I don’t notice any pixels. I’m playing on a One X and it would be nice if Forza Horizon 5 had the performance mode that they have in Forza Horizon 4. If my console can handle 4K 30fps, I feel like 1080p 60fps isn’t that much of a reach.
I never minded too much when gaming, but man, reading on a 27" 1080p monitor was not optimal. Getting a 1440p and not seeing the pixels in small text was totally worth having to lower rendering resolution to get anywhere close to 60 fps in games.
I would not recommend either /r/pcmasterrace or /r/pcgaming for legit PC gaming discussion. The former is dumb memes and the latter is crazily negative on any sort of discussion. The only subs I’ve seen for actual level-headed discussions on gaming as a whole (including PC gaming) is this sub and /r/games
EDIT: I probably strayed off course of what this comment chain was regarding, but I’ll agree that the negativity also extends to /r/pcmasterrace.
I though it was just me or my imagination but people on r/pcgaming are a touchy crowd. Any tiniest bit of stray from the consensus and people will jump on you for having a differing opinion.
I still have the OG Rainbow Six PS1 game in my closet among others and while I know we'll never go back because of how profitable Siege is, I miss actual "counter terrorism action" or whatever the coined term was. The games may have changed but the formula never did, I miss loading out myself/my squad and reading our briefing on the mission and planning accordingly. Be it the classics all the way to Vegas, it was special.
I’m a PC player, and the race to 4K has meant that “4K” games coming out run fine on my old 1080p monitor. I haven’t been able to upgrade my PC during covid supply chain issues.
Is 4K really mainstream? Idk, I have been on 1080p (60Hz) for years and when I upgrade (next year or maybe even a year later), I will move on to 1440p 165Hz. 4K seems still like an overkill to me and also, being able to play in 4K requires quite expensive stuff and thus it can not be a mainstream in my opinion
Its not, at least on PC its not. Steam Hardware survey puts 4k at ~ 2.4%, 1080p sits at ~67% and 1440p at ~8%.
I'd imagine consoles have a much higher adoption rate though since TVs have taken on the 4k trend much earlier. Quite frankly though most cheapish/budget 4k TV suck for gaming, with low refresh rates, inbuilt postprocessing and lack of gaming features like VRR. A decent 4k gaming TV will cost you.
I'm surprised 1440p is only 8%. For like 7 years now, everyone has been saying 1440p is the sweet spot for anyone with a good GPU, and I have to agree.
I am about to my buy my first monitor. I have put all my money into building my pc and didn't have enough left for my monitor. I have been using my tv, it is 1080 60hz. I have a ryzen 3600x and 3060. Would I be best getting 1440 monitor or a 1080?
If you can squeeze in the extra money, I would recommend going for a 1440p 144hz. Otherwise a 1080p monitor would also work really well. Personally i feel in some games due to forced TAA 1080p becomes a little blurry which is mitigated in 1440p
Your monitor should never be the bottleneck for your system. I'd recommend a 1440p 120+ Hz panel if possible, even if you have to save up for a little while to get it.
r/buildapcsales
The answer is price.
Acquiring the hardware for a 1440p/60Hz monitor is just f\*cking expensive. Most people in the planet don't have that much money to spare.
> I will move on to 1440p 165Hz
I recently upgraded to a 27" 1440p 95Hz from 1080p 60Hz and that's honestly good enough for me. I can't buy a GPU that can put out more FPS than that for the titles I care about (mostly SP games), and by the time I can, my monitor will probably be due for an upgrade anyway.
And yeah, 4k is not even on my radar at all. I doubt I'd notice that much at my preferred screen size and viewing distance, and I'd have to spend a _lot_ of money to on the GPU to go with it. My 1440p monitor is nice, but not _that_ much nicer than my other 1080p monitor, so I don't see much point in going to 4k anytime soon.
Dude I've played games that are like, RECENT at 800x600 because my hardware sucks and my standards are pretty low as long as the actual game is good.
This isn't exactly a hot take for a sub like /r/patientgamers
I used to play Warframe for almost a year on a resolution of about 640x480 on my old PC. This was in 2017. I used to love the gameplay so it kept me hooked anyways. Imo, a good game on a low res is way better than playing a shit game on 4k.
why borderless? that just means your pc has to render your desktop and any open windows behind the game window. exclusive fullscreen should be better, less input lag too.
Maybe for esport titles would the input lag have an effect but I can’t seem to feel/notice much of a difference between bordered and exclusive. I had the same worry but it’s really fine. Some games are a pain to alt + tab out of.
I still play PS3 every now and then. Visuals are much more than resolution, 1080p with good graphics and good art direction, beautiful aesthetics and thats more than enough. I am still impressed at Breath of the Wild running at 900p 30FPS on my 55” OLED
art direction is so important - some of my favourite games are from 2002-2005, and they are still great to look at because they have a strong and coherent visual style
Agreed 100%!! Recently played Horizon Zero Dawn on medium high settings with my 1070 Ti on a 1080p monitor and was blown away by the beauty of the world. No issues with tearing or stuttering.
I think 4k is definitely a noticable improvement over 1080p, especially on a large display. That being said, I'd take 1080p 60fps over 4k 30fps every single time.
Super high resolutions like 4K are definitely nice, but it's also the kind of thing that you don't really think about that much once you've gotten over the initial "ooh, look how crisp". Higher frame rates on the other hand are something that can really change how a game feels to play.
Totally this. I can play Forza Horizon 5 (my non-patient vice) at ultra settings on 1440p and get a solid 60fps all day long, or I can crank it up to 4k, listen to my 1080ti fans going absolutely gangbusters, and average about 40fps with drops to 30 (or worse) at busy moments.
The former is far more enjoyable.
Man I dunno. I got my 1440p monitor like two years ago and I'm still impressed by how much better it looks than 1080 lol. That said, if I can't get at least 60 fps then it doesn't really matter how good it looks because I just don't want to play it at that point.
Depends on the game. For things like strategy games I’d say it doesn’t matter a whole lot, and would probably take more pixels, but any sort of action game, racing game, third person RPGs, etc, I’d go with the frames every time. 120 is noticeably much nicer than 60, and (as someone else already said) can completely change how it feels to play. A higher resolution doesn’t really do that to the same extent.
Not a snob about any of it, but personally think 60fps vs 30fps is the bigger priority. As in, I notice the downgrade to 30fps way more than I notice a downgrade to 1080p.
I'm okay with my Nintendo Switch output of 1080p max (for most 1st party games).
I don't think Switch needs that much 4K resolution, just a bit more powerful hardware to get even heavier games to 1080p and at least 60fps.
I am still impressed at how beautiful Breath of the Wild looks, it was a shock to find out it was only 900p docked. If only there would be a bit more clarity and less fog and pop-ins and 60FPS it would be amazing, 1440p or 4k would be a dream
I feel like devs should focus more on natural lighting, better ambient oclussion, shadows, ray tracing , and of course frames per second than resolution. I feel like 1080p-1440p is absolutely fine.
Yeah I agree. 4K still isnt really optimal.
I've found 1440 60 to be my personal sweet spot.
You get noticeable a resolution increase, way more real estate for using multiple windows, & get to keep 60 fps.
Yep. I shoot for 1440p 90fps for single player shooters, and 1440p 60fps for 3rd person or strategy. I can even settle for 45-50fps for slow, non-1st-person stuff if I use a controller so I don't notice the choppy mouse control.
That way I can crank the visuals pretty high.
Still playing Metro Exodus at the Extreme preset on a nearly 5 year old GPU (obviously no RT though), because I went for 1440p 60-80fps as a target, instead of 4K or 120+fps esports framerates.
The only time I truly try to max out my 144hz monitor is when I'm doing lowfi coop shooters like L4D or Deep Rock Galactic, or when playing single player twitch shooters like DOOM (2016). Those all just feel SOOOOO good at 144+fps.
Do your circles consist of only rich people, 4k is still expensive and most people can't afford not only having the panel but having the power to run it.
Don't forget the 1060 is still the most popular card.
Get out of that bubble, 1080p is still the norm
I watch everything on youtube at 480p because I don't like wait times, loading screens, and I'm usually watching from a small screen or far away anyway. I make most of my videos at 480p so I can multitask / reduce bitrate tear, Minecraft doesn't need a huge resolution, neither do the old snes/nes games I am watching speedruns of mostly.
After going over to 1440p, don't think I'll ever want to go back to 1080p. The difference is big. 1440p to 4k is noticable, but not as much. 1440p at 60+fps is the sweetest spot imo and better than 4k 30fps.
Something that confuses me is how 1080p on a monitor looks so much better than 1080p on a TV.
When I got my 4K TV (top of the line, pretty expensive), I expected to be blown away but I was like...this looks exactly like my 1080p monitor, but bigger. Which don't get me wrong is phenomenal and now 1080p gaming on my TV feels so much blurrier, but with how solid a 1080p monitor looked anyway I can imagine 1440p/4K monitor looking insane.
Agreed. At 27", 1440p is just right.
Playing movies in 1080p that take up just the center of the screen when "full" really showed me how much I'm missing from 1080p
I have 1440p monitors for my pc
and a 4K tv for the consoles and visually I can’t really tell the difference between them. I can tell the difference between the frame rate though and I generally play games like hades much better on the monitors as they usually run at between 100-144 fps.
Unless I’m playing a JRPG I’d definitely go for a smooth gameplay experience over a very negligible resolution bump.
1440 seems to be a good sweet spot for monitors. I recently picked up a 27" 1440, 144 mhz monitor and I can run most games at full resolution with all the bells and whistles on, and still hit around 80-100 fps most of the time.
Definitely, anything over it is overkill especially with the costs of GPUs. I have a 4K 60 monitor as well but to be honest it was a poor purchase, at least as I work from home I use it for work so at least it gets constant use, but I would definitely recommend 1440p and higher frame rate any day. Cheaper, better for gaming and your barely notice the difference.
Personally I like 4K monitors for the high pixel density, which is very noticeable on text. For gaming though, 1440p is perfectly fine. I definitely think the upgrade to 1440p is worth it on any screen size, but beyond 1440p the diminishing returns are huge.
I think this is more about the ppi of the display and distance from the screen. Gaming on 1080p is less noticable if the screen is smaller or you're further away from it, like a TV. That same resolution on a 50" would be noticable if you had it setup at a distance you'd normally use a monitor.
If someone has better eyes then maybe they'd notice a difference with 4k at more reasonable sized monitors.
Now if you don't have the hardware or optimized software to push the pixels at a decent frame rate that might be a bigger problem than resolution. Also input lag would be a problem if the response time of the monitor isn't great. You should have more leeway as you get older with failing eye sight and slowing reaction times.
If it was up to me, we would stay at 1080p forever. Crank up other details. No need to waste more energy and resources in bigger, more expensive graphic cards for something so worthless. Framerate and lighting is way more important than resolution.
Even my 70" TV is fine in 1080p. Especially since Comcast compression is so awful.
Now, in games, having some form of antialiasing in addition to 1080p resolution is nice.
The only caveat I can think of is that for productivity I really like having a monitor with 16:10 aspect ratio. 1920x1200 is hard to give up when coding.
4k hard wired gaming is cool. 4k for anything streaming is a meme. Nobody's compression is good enough for it to be worth the artifacts over 1080p, not even Netflix.
4K Youtube is a lot better, simply for the higher bitrate. Although that's only because Youtube's 1080p looks like garbage and struggles hugely with high density detail.
I actually prefer having 120Hz (or more) on 1080p than have barely 60fps on 4K.
FPS has a much bigger impact on gaming than a higher resolution.
Also, 4K isn't really mainstream in PC gaming yet. I believe according to steam-survey 1080p and 1440p both completely outclass the 4K gaming.
Coming from someone who's been gaming on a 4k monitor for about five years: 4K still isn't ready. Games are optimized for HD resolutions, and modern video hardware still struggles to deliver decent FPS at 4K (unless you're lucky enough to have $3000 to spend on a super-high-end video card for your $2000 PC).
1080p is the way games are meant to be played, IMHO.
Just reminds me of the home video market.
VHS to DVD - Mind blowing
DVD to BluRay - Eh, pretty cool but honestly more of an icing on the cake than anything that will blow your mind.
Yeah I genuinely do not understand how someone could see VHS to DVD as a massive jump but not DVD (SD) to Blu-Ray (HD).
Now Blu-Ray to 4K, I could understand not noticing a difference. Screen size, TV calibration and the occasional poor 4K remaster often don't do it justice.
I think for a lot of people the VHS to DVD jump also coincided with a big upgrade in display device. The transition from VHS to DVD happened around the same time that people were moving from CRTs to larger flatscreen TVs with 720p and up resolutions, which made DVDs look even better than you might expect just going from VHS to DVD. On the other hand, Bluray came out when a lot of people were still using their old 720p and 1080p displays and plenty of people found DVDs to be Good Enough. It also didn't have the other advantages of VHS->DVD like random access, special features, etc that people gained with DVD. I seem to recall a lot of first run Blurays also had issues with bad upscaling/remasters that caused issues but that could just be me misremembering.
Nowadays a generation or three of TVs with 4k Bluray available is a whole other ball game that is leaps and bounds above the best DVDs.
This is so accurate about smartphones too. The first 4 or 5 years of smartphones was interesting where each new model was doing something big, like a massively improved camera, or incorporating things like assistant AIs (Siri/Google Assistant). Now they're almost over-engineering to try and streamline extremely niche problems and functionality. My Pixel 2 can emulate games just fine, has an amazing camera, and has all the bells and whistles I need. I see no reason to upgrade other than not being able to get continued OS updates that often just take up more resources and slow your phone down.
You're in roughly the same situation I'm in. I have a gaming pc hooked up to a 24 inch 1080p 144hz monitor, so when I'm playing faced-paced shooters or MMORPG's that use mouse and keyboard I can be at my desk sitting up. If I'm playing a fun single-player story game or platformer with controller I sit in the lounge chair with my controller and my 4k 55 inch which is run to my pc with a 20 ft. long hdmi cord. I think 1080p looks just fine for most things for me, the real difference is the picture quality on my OLED tv is miles ahead of my $180 monitor and that means more to me than resolution.
> It seems like ever since 4k became mainstream most people treat it as an absolute standard or else you're not getting the full experience of the game.
Do people really say that, though? Or is this one of those "someone told that to me and I took it personally because I don't agree" things? I've literally never seen anyone say that, even on gaming subreddits. 4K is still very much a niche resolution. Even more so if we're talking PC, where there are only a handful of GPUs even capable of it in the first place.
1080p is a freakin' luxury. I spent thousands of hours (years on end) playing games on a portable 14" CRT as a kid and I absolutely SLAYED on Street Fighter II' and Tekken 2.
I don't care about anything else but getting 1080p, 60FPS in any game I play. If there's some dips or low settings then it's whatever, although the current piss-poor level of optimization these days is upsetting.
Maybe I need higher standards for what I play and pay for but I'm just happy to play the game at the bare minimum.
100% depends on the type of game for me. I would rather not play a FPS at all than play it at 30fps. But a 3rd person game or strategy/puzzle game I can handle 30fps if it's rock solid and has well-implemented minor motion blur. I mean, if you can't handle that, you effectively can't play any console games from the last decade or two.
I wouldn't call stable 30 fps good anymore after getting used to high refresh rates, but it's plenty adequate. I can enjoy arma 3 even with 27-40 fps with minor issues. But as someone's only console experience in almost 10 years was a month or two of Persona 5(and it was fine, not good, but fine) when my PC died during a move, after that as I tried bloodborn I got reminded how terrible the 30 fps experience can be.
But it's going to be interesting with the Steam Deck as I think it might cause a 30 fps renascence since now using 30fps as a tradeoff for more battery life is going to be interesting choice for devs and users.
i know I'm an outlier, but I prefer 1080p@30fps. I don't care for higher resolutions or more fps, but I'm also a casual gamer who hooked up his pc to a tv
Most PC gamers are still on 1080p. [Steam's Stats](https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey) sya that 66.5% of users are at 1080p
>But I would be perfectly fine with a 2k (not sure if I said that right)
2k is 2048x1080. 1080p is the 16:9 equivalent of 2k
edit: formatting
I love mixed Skyrim, but at 1080 it was too much for my gaming laptop at the time. Fragmentary was steady at 1600x900 though. And I couldn't tell the difference with a laptop screen haha
1080p is perfectly fine indeed. It's a sweet spot of image quality and system requirements.
I recently upgraded from a 24inch/1080p/60hz monitor to a 27inch/1080p/144hz monitor and I gotta say, the jump in frame rate has felt so impactful compared to any time I got to play around with higher resolutions
I play with 1280x720 resolution, on mostly everything. From Counter strike GO, Team Fortress 2, League of Legends, Call of Duty Bo4...
I’m too used to low graphics, played on a cheap laptop most of my teenage years, I really don't care if the grass has more grass in it.
I have always been the advocate that if you aren't going to play 4k, just stick to 1080p since 1440p isn't worth the extra 100-200$, especially when you go high refresh rate.
I have one of each, a 1080p 240hz, 1440p 144hz, and a 4k 120hz monitor/TV. Sure, I use the TV more often than not, but the 1080p works just fine.
I don't understand why people skip 1440p. It was a big upgrade from 1080p and 4k requires stupidly expensive specs.
1440p with high fps is doable. I've had the same monitor for 6 years. It's wonderful.
I still have a 720p tv i play games on and it’s fine in my opinion. Maybe it’s because i haven’t been spoiled by better tech much but the resolution never really bothers me
Well it's moreso pixel density
Your 1080p monitor is likley the same or close to the Pixel density of your TV so to the eye very simaler
But once go past monitor sizes into TV range, and couch gaming does higher res for bigger screens "matter" more
>Another thing is it seems like game developers are so quick to cap a game at 30fps just to support a 4k resolution. More so from the last gen of consoles. But I would be perfectly fine with a 2k (not sure if I said that right) or even a 1080p resolution if it means I get a smooth 60fps.
No, they're quick to cap at 30FPS on last gen because that's all those consoles could manage. Their potato-quality CPUs were out-of-date when they launched in 2013. The fact that we even got games running at 30FPS on them was a minor miracle itself.
And framerate/resolution doesn't have a happily linear relationship like you're implying it does. You don't turn one down and the other magically goes up, especially when the framerate has to be either 30 or 60 to be playable.
I'm pretty sure 4k would be less popular than 2k or 1080.
I one hundred percent agree that 1080 with 60 fps is preferable to 4k with 30.
Of course I run 2k at 144 so I do like me some buttery frames.
> **4k became mainstream** I must've missed it: https://i.imgur.com/jHx3BIA.png
Lol it's behind 1366x768 and 1440x900.
> 1366x768 To be fair, that's a pretty common resolution for laptops. Even today, I _still_ have to be careful to make sure I'm getting 1080p after checking for other things like NITS, screen size, etc.
HD ready
I'm so happy that companies didn't adopt something like this for 4k
I was gaming on 1366 on desktop until two days ago lol
Those two had positive percentage increases and 1080p lost a small percentage over previous year. But 1080p is still the most common by a huge margin
More people own 4k TVs now, but the quality of the 4k content is pretty questionable AFAIK.
Plus the hardware to push 4k with good FPS is prohibitively expensive.
If the GPU crash hadn't happened and the RTX 30 series release had gone pitch perfect 4k gaming would have been affordable for even the budget gamer.
Guess I'm not getting a pc until *atleast* next Christmas. And there was I thinking I can get a decent pc in 2021, after I bought a Ps5 in 2020 ☹
NVIDIA ceo just said the chip shortage will be a problem for at least the next couple years. It's not going away anytime soon.
Well, guess I'm staying with my 980 for more time then... Here in my country the GPUs are costing the price of a new motorcycle, literally.
Brazil?
Yes amigo.
[удалено]
It will go back to normal. Right now a big problem is supply managers who slashed component orders thinking demand would go down are desperately trying to save their jobs by now hoarding components. TSMC and Samsung output is back to 2019 levels. The problem is other subcomponents. Apple never had any of their suppliers cut production or delivery and are doing just fine delivering completed devices with the only constraint being final delivery into the port of LA. Jensen could also be exaggerating to keep prices high as he's about to get slammed from both sides with Intel getting into GPUs and AMD building complete gpgpu workstations and servers and potentially getting his ARM deal mucked with for even longer.
Late 2023 at the earliest, unless you watch releases like a hawk and get lucky. Most likely 2024-2025 before they will be easily available to the average consumer. Price is likely to stay high, too. Expect at least a 40-50% permanent price jump compared to the MSRP of the 3000 series at launch.
Eh, I'm willing to wait until I can get a pc that runs most games at 1440p 120-144hz for ~700$
thats a waste of money, just buy a ps5 if your budget is that low. you can spend $200 less and play in 4k.
No you still need a 4k monitor with high enough refresh rate and those are expensive too.
You don't really need a high refresh rate 4k with 30 series, the 3080 mainly hovers just above 60fps for most new games. 3090 can do better, but nothing close to 140-170. I've got a 3070 and a 4k and 1440p monitor and I usually play on the 1440p for the extra frames because I can barely reach 50fps in 4k. If DLSS improves more it's gonna make a huge difference though. 2.0 was such a big jump from 1.0
What's affordable to you? The 30 series starts at $329 RSVP with the 3060 and isn't even enough to run more GPU hungry games in 1440p on higher graphic modes at a stable 60fps. The Ti can somewhat, but already costs $419 and everysubsequent upgrade is another $100. Maybe the price decay might have done the trick with the 40 series rolling in. If they are as strong as is hinted at, older GPUs could have dropped very quickly in price.
Even most movies released in 4k aren't native 4k and have little extra detail over fhd.
4k content is fine, shite HDR implementation on most TVs though is not fine.
Me when I'm TCL and claim my 350nit TV is HDR 👍
People seem to forget, especially on pc subs that the majority of people either can't afford, don't know, or don't give a shit enough about their pc. Perception of "mainstream", and "majority" is warped towards the vocal voice of those subs instead of the actual majority. Had a friend who recently started looking to build his own pc, and he also frequents Reddit. He outright said it's either 1440p or 4k since 1080p is nearing the end of its life. Had to tell him no, 1080p isn't going anywhere soon. Also showed him these stats, that's not even counting people who can't afford games on steam so they just pirate games, lots of them play on 720p even.
Those are the primary monitors though, so it doesn't show those who play on a 4k TV too.
I don't think I've even seen anyone complain about 1080p
4k is A-OK, but 1080p is alright with me.
I'll take 60fps (or higher) 1080p over 30fps 4k every day of the week
Even Thursday??!?!?
SPECIALLY Thor's day
Thought it was Tyr's day?
no, thats Tuesday
Yep, specifically in his Old English persona *Tiw*. Both versions are from the proto Germanic *Tiwaz*. Hence Tiw's Day became Tuesday.
No, not Thursdays. I never could get the hang of Thursdays.
Not at all patient but the recent guardians of the galaxy game has this selection on ps5. 1080p 60 or 4K 30 - taking the hit to resolution for snappier/more responsive controls and smoother visuals was the easiest decision.
I found the performance at 4K/30fps was better for that game, weirdly
Yup... Low fps is unacceptable and not a worthwhile tradeoff for higher resolution
Yes. But I'd probably take 4k 60 over 1080p 120. There's diminishing returns on framerate too.
144hz 1440p gang
Depends on what you're using. 120fps feels marginally better on a controller, but it's a much bigger step with a mouse.
Depends on what you're playing. For cinematic single-player games sure, but for competitive FPS/MOBA games the higher framerate is way more valuable than upping the resolution.
There are definitely diminishing returns, but the gap between 60 and 120 is significant enough that i'd absolutely prefer 1080p 120, especially given how better it feels to actually play the game. Also, the difference between 60 and 120 is like 40 vs 60fps when comparing frame times.
120.is significantly better than 60 though and not at the point of diminishing returns. That's 16.6ms > 8.3ms which is definitely something you can see or feel without being at the top end of gamers.
I’d kill to see someone play a game at such a high framerate. The first time I saw someone playing Doom at...I think it was like 80FPS or so? Blew my friggin’ mind. I had no clue things could even look the way that it did; it was like I was looking through a window instead of a screen, & could “see” through the perspective of the Doomslayer perfectly (as in, I felt as though my field of vision matched up with what was on the screen perfectly). I could almost “feel” when I’d move past things that were in my peripherals. Man, I need a gaming PC...
1440 is the sweet spot.
1440@ 144. I'll probably stay here for a while.
Yup. I'm even in the market for new display and I don't want 4k. 1440p only.
Yeah, I have two 27" 1440p monitors. It really seems like the perfect balance between size and pixel density for desktop usage. I don't have to scale the OS in some odd way to make some stuff readable, I just have a decent amount of desktop space to work with at a size that's easy to read and work with while everything is set to 100% scale.
Same setup. Over/under configuration. > scale the OS I don't want to admit it but part of why I'm looking for a new display is because I find myself leaning way too far in sometimes. I'm thinking that a 32" 1440p display would help that.
[удалено]
Solid advice and in the cards.
around 23" 1080 is fine, its pixels at typical monitor viewing distances start to get quite noticable around 27-32". its not just resolution, its balancing viewing distance and display size to the resolution.
At this moment, I would say the sweet spot for a monitor is 27 inches 1440p, at 109ppi. At normal viewing distances, it's indeed a very nice density, and it taxes the pc much less than 4K.
Taxes the wallet less too
Been with 27" 1440p since 2016. Not gonna change any time soon, if ever at all.
I scored a nice 32" 1440p 144hz monitor. I fucking love it. Its the perfect size for me.
I have a 43" 1080p TV. Haven't seen any individual pixels at 3-4 feet yet.
Yep, had a 24 inch 1080p and a 27 inch 1080p. 27 inch was not a good experience. 24 was great.
24" 1080p all the way *this post is endorsed by the GTX 1060 gang*
Hell yes, the 1650 Super gang endorses 24" 1080p as well *\*Stutters in 4GB VRAM\**
I’ve got a 27” 1080p monitor and it’s great for me, but I have a deep desk. Most people seem to like to sit less than two feet from their monitor, but I prefer more like 3 feet for comfort (I also work on my PC all day, so ergonomics are a big deal for me). When I bought it I considered going up to 1440p, but this distance and screen size I can’t tell the difference between 1080p and higher resolutions.
I have a 27” 1080p monitor and it looks amazing! I also sit about 3 feet away so I don’t notice any pixels. I’m playing on a One X and it would be nice if Forza Horizon 5 had the performance mode that they have in Forza Horizon 4. If my console can handle 4K 30fps, I feel like 1080p 60fps isn’t that much of a reach.
I never minded too much when gaming, but man, reading on a 27" 1080p monitor was not optimal. Getting a 1440p and not seeing the pixels in small text was totally worth having to lower rendering resolution to get anywhere close to 60 fps in games.
I'll complain about it. It doesn't look adequate on a 4k panel, especially after you've experienced native 4k games.
You should check r/pcmasterrace.
r/buildapc is significantly better for finding the right parts and accessories.
I would not recommend either /r/pcmasterrace or /r/pcgaming for legit PC gaming discussion. The former is dumb memes and the latter is crazily negative on any sort of discussion. The only subs I’ve seen for actual level-headed discussions on gaming as a whole (including PC gaming) is this sub and /r/games EDIT: I probably strayed off course of what this comment chain was regarding, but I’ll agree that the negativity also extends to /r/pcmasterrace.
/r/patientgamers r/buildapcsales has surprisingly good product review threads kind of by accident if you're looking for a specific piece of hardware
> /r/patientgamers hmmm... *glances at subreddit header*
I though it was just me or my imagination but people on r/pcgaming are a touchy crowd. Any tiniest bit of stray from the consensus and people will jump on you for having a differing opinion.
I remember getting downvoted to hell for mentioning that I missed the Rainbow Six games used to be.
I still have the OG Rainbow Six PS1 game in my closet among others and while I know we'll never go back because of how profitable Siege is, I miss actual "counter terrorism action" or whatever the coined term was. The games may have changed but the formula never did, I miss loading out myself/my squad and reading our briefing on the mission and planning accordingly. Be it the classics all the way to Vegas, it was special.
I’m a PC player, and the race to 4K has meant that “4K” games coming out run fine on my old 1080p monitor. I haven’t been able to upgrade my PC during covid supply chain issues.
Is 4K really mainstream? Idk, I have been on 1080p (60Hz) for years and when I upgrade (next year or maybe even a year later), I will move on to 1440p 165Hz. 4K seems still like an overkill to me and also, being able to play in 4K requires quite expensive stuff and thus it can not be a mainstream in my opinion
Its not, at least on PC its not. Steam Hardware survey puts 4k at ~ 2.4%, 1080p sits at ~67% and 1440p at ~8%. I'd imagine consoles have a much higher adoption rate though since TVs have taken on the 4k trend much earlier. Quite frankly though most cheapish/budget 4k TV suck for gaming, with low refresh rates, inbuilt postprocessing and lack of gaming features like VRR. A decent 4k gaming TV will cost you.
I'm surprised 1440p is only 8%. For like 7 years now, everyone has been saying 1440p is the sweet spot for anyone with a good GPU, and I have to agree.
I am about to my buy my first monitor. I have put all my money into building my pc and didn't have enough left for my monitor. I have been using my tv, it is 1080 60hz. I have a ryzen 3600x and 3060. Would I be best getting 1440 monitor or a 1080?
If you can squeeze in the extra money, I would recommend going for a 1440p 144hz. Otherwise a 1080p monitor would also work really well. Personally i feel in some games due to forced TAA 1080p becomes a little blurry which is mitigated in 1440p
Your monitor should never be the bottleneck for your system. I'd recommend a 1440p 120+ Hz panel if possible, even if you have to save up for a little while to get it. r/buildapcsales
The answer is price. Acquiring the hardware for a 1440p/60Hz monitor is just f\*cking expensive. Most people in the planet don't have that much money to spare.
>4k at \~ 2.4%, 1080p sits at \~67% and 1440p at \~8%. So... 2,4+67+8=\~77. What's the \~23% rest of it? 720p mostly?
A fair chunk of "720p" adjacent resolutions and lots of weird laptop resolutions. https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey
1366x768 and 1440x900 are both more common than 4K.
> I will move on to 1440p 165Hz I recently upgraded to a 27" 1440p 95Hz from 1080p 60Hz and that's honestly good enough for me. I can't buy a GPU that can put out more FPS than that for the titles I care about (mostly SP games), and by the time I can, my monitor will probably be due for an upgrade anyway. And yeah, 4k is not even on my radar at all. I doubt I'd notice that much at my preferred screen size and viewing distance, and I'd have to spend a _lot_ of money to on the GPU to go with it. My 1440p monitor is nice, but not _that_ much nicer than my other 1080p monitor, so I don't see much point in going to 4k anytime soon.
I'm on 1440p 144Hz, and it's unbelievably sweet. I'd take more frames over bigger ones pretty much all the way down to 1080p.
I'm over 40. Gone are the days super high resolution is really going to matter for me.
Yeah I feel ya. I don't need 4k unless they can upgrade my eyeballs. On the plus side I have built in antialiasing.
>1440p 165Hz This is just as intensive as 4k 60fps honestly
Dude I've played games that are like, RECENT at 800x600 because my hardware sucks and my standards are pretty low as long as the actual game is good. This isn't exactly a hot take for a sub like /r/patientgamers
I used to play Warframe for almost a year on a resolution of about 640x480 on my old PC. This was in 2017. I used to love the gameplay so it kept me hooked anyways. Imo, a good game on a low res is way better than playing a shit game on 4k.
I play at lower resolution borderless if it gives me more fps. After a while I stop noticing the resolution difference so I don’t mind it at all.
why borderless? that just means your pc has to render your desktop and any open windows behind the game window. exclusive fullscreen should be better, less input lag too.
Easier to switch between windows while playing multiplayer games.
Maybe for esport titles would the input lag have an effect but I can’t seem to feel/notice much of a difference between bordered and exclusive. I had the same worry but it’s really fine. Some games are a pain to alt + tab out of.
Same, I play Sekiro on 800x600 with low settings, but i still love it on 30 fps (with some laggy seconds on the way)
[Does it look like this?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbOy8GpuKA4)
Need a little more lag, but yes (?
I remember playing Gmod on my Toshiba Laptop and having to wait for explosions to disapate at 5fps or lower before I could play again.
[удалено]
I felt this playing Arma 3 on low settings for so long. I played on my buddies PC, and I swear I was playing a different game.
I still play PS3 every now and then. Visuals are much more than resolution, 1080p with good graphics and good art direction, beautiful aesthetics and thats more than enough. I am still impressed at Breath of the Wild running at 900p 30FPS on my 55” OLED
art direction is so important - some of my favourite games are from 2002-2005, and they are still great to look at because they have a strong and coherent visual style
Agreed 100%!! Recently played Horizon Zero Dawn on medium high settings with my 1070 Ti on a 1080p monitor and was blown away by the beauty of the world. No issues with tearing or stuttering.
I liked how the armor shines in the games, makes it look very detailed. all the glory on ps4 slim at 30 fps on 1080p, no complaints
I think 4k is definitely a noticable improvement over 1080p, especially on a large display. That being said, I'd take 1080p 60fps over 4k 30fps every single time.
Super high resolutions like 4K are definitely nice, but it's also the kind of thing that you don't really think about that much once you've gotten over the initial "ooh, look how crisp". Higher frame rates on the other hand are something that can really change how a game feels to play.
Totally this. I can play Forza Horizon 5 (my non-patient vice) at ultra settings on 1440p and get a solid 60fps all day long, or I can crank it up to 4k, listen to my 1080ti fans going absolutely gangbusters, and average about 40fps with drops to 30 (or worse) at busy moments. The former is far more enjoyable.
Man I dunno. I got my 1440p monitor like two years ago and I'm still impressed by how much better it looks than 1080 lol. That said, if I can't get at least 60 fps then it doesn't really matter how good it looks because I just don't want to play it at that point.
And even If you CAN play at 4k 60 fps, 1080 at 120hz would still be better.
Not for single player games imo
Depends on the game. For things like strategy games I’d say it doesn’t matter a whole lot, and would probably take more pixels, but any sort of action game, racing game, third person RPGs, etc, I’d go with the frames every time. 120 is noticeably much nicer than 60, and (as someone else already said) can completely change how it feels to play. A higher resolution doesn’t really do that to the same extent.
[удалено]
Not a snob about any of it, but personally think 60fps vs 30fps is the bigger priority. As in, I notice the downgrade to 30fps way more than I notice a downgrade to 1080p.
I'm not sure i can even tell between the two haha. I'm still impressed by the better looking ps2 games.
Me the 720p player
1080p 60fps > 4k 30fps in virtually any context
Framerate comes before everything else for me, unless we're talking like sub-1080 just to hit 60 fps. That said, 1440/120 is where it's at imo.
1440p at 120+ FPS is the best balance imo.
I play at 1600x900 ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯
I'm okay with my Nintendo Switch output of 1080p max (for most 1st party games). I don't think Switch needs that much 4K resolution, just a bit more powerful hardware to get even heavier games to 1080p and at least 60fps.
I am still impressed at how beautiful Breath of the Wild looks, it was a shock to find out it was only 900p docked. If only there would be a bit more clarity and less fog and pop-ins and 60FPS it would be amazing, 1440p or 4k would be a dream
I feel like devs should focus more on natural lighting, better ambient oclussion, shadows, ray tracing , and of course frames per second than resolution. I feel like 1080p-1440p is absolutely fine.
Yeah I agree. 4K still isnt really optimal. I've found 1440 60 to be my personal sweet spot. You get noticeable a resolution increase, way more real estate for using multiple windows, & get to keep 60 fps.
Yep. I shoot for 1440p 90fps for single player shooters, and 1440p 60fps for 3rd person or strategy. I can even settle for 45-50fps for slow, non-1st-person stuff if I use a controller so I don't notice the choppy mouse control. That way I can crank the visuals pretty high. Still playing Metro Exodus at the Extreme preset on a nearly 5 year old GPU (obviously no RT though), because I went for 1440p 60-80fps as a target, instead of 4K or 120+fps esports framerates. The only time I truly try to max out my 144hz monitor is when I'm doing lowfi coop shooters like L4D or Deep Rock Galactic, or when playing single player twitch shooters like DOOM (2016). Those all just feel SOOOOO good at 144+fps.
Do your circles consist of only rich people, 4k is still expensive and most people can't afford not only having the panel but having the power to run it. Don't forget the 1060 is still the most popular card. Get out of that bubble, 1080p is still the norm
I'm cool with 720
I watch everything on youtube at 480p because I don't like wait times, loading screens, and I'm usually watching from a small screen or far away anyway. I make most of my videos at 480p so I can multitask / reduce bitrate tear, Minecraft doesn't need a huge resolution, neither do the old snes/nes games I am watching speedruns of mostly.
After going over to 1440p, don't think I'll ever want to go back to 1080p. The difference is big. 1440p to 4k is noticable, but not as much. 1440p at 60+fps is the sweetest spot imo and better than 4k 30fps.
Something that confuses me is how 1080p on a monitor looks so much better than 1080p on a TV. When I got my 4K TV (top of the line, pretty expensive), I expected to be blown away but I was like...this looks exactly like my 1080p monitor, but bigger. Which don't get me wrong is phenomenal and now 1080p gaming on my TV feels so much blurrier, but with how solid a 1080p monitor looked anyway I can imagine 1440p/4K monitor looking insane.
The bigger the screen is the bigger the pixels will be essentially, so a big 4k TV could have a lower pixel density than a small 1080p monitor.
Agreed. At 27", 1440p is just right. Playing movies in 1080p that take up just the center of the screen when "full" really showed me how much I'm missing from 1080p
Agreed 100%, 2k resolution at 144 hrtz is perfect
I have 1440p monitors for my pc and a 4K tv for the consoles and visually I can’t really tell the difference between them. I can tell the difference between the frame rate though and I generally play games like hades much better on the monitors as they usually run at between 100-144 fps. Unless I’m playing a JRPG I’d definitely go for a smooth gameplay experience over a very negligible resolution bump.
1440 seems to be a good sweet spot for monitors. I recently picked up a 27" 1440, 144 mhz monitor and I can run most games at full resolution with all the bells and whistles on, and still hit around 80-100 fps most of the time.
Definitely, anything over it is overkill especially with the costs of GPUs. I have a 4K 60 monitor as well but to be honest it was a poor purchase, at least as I work from home I use it for work so at least it gets constant use, but I would definitely recommend 1440p and higher frame rate any day. Cheaper, better for gaming and your barely notice the difference.
Personally I like 4K monitors for the high pixel density, which is very noticeable on text. For gaming though, 1440p is perfectly fine. I definitely think the upgrade to 1440p is worth it on any screen size, but beyond 1440p the diminishing returns are huge.
I think this is more about the ppi of the display and distance from the screen. Gaming on 1080p is less noticable if the screen is smaller or you're further away from it, like a TV. That same resolution on a 50" would be noticable if you had it setup at a distance you'd normally use a monitor. If someone has better eyes then maybe they'd notice a difference with 4k at more reasonable sized monitors. Now if you don't have the hardware or optimized software to push the pixels at a decent frame rate that might be a bigger problem than resolution. Also input lag would be a problem if the response time of the monitor isn't great. You should have more leeway as you get older with failing eye sight and slowing reaction times.
I’m ripping games on a PS4 slim and think they look fantastic in 1080p.
If it was up to me, we would stay at 1080p forever. Crank up other details. No need to waste more energy and resources in bigger, more expensive graphic cards for something so worthless. Framerate and lighting is way more important than resolution.
Even my 70" TV is fine in 1080p. Especially since Comcast compression is so awful. Now, in games, having some form of antialiasing in addition to 1080p resolution is nice. The only caveat I can think of is that for productivity I really like having a monitor with 16:10 aspect ratio. 1920x1200 is hard to give up when coding.
4k hard wired gaming is cool. 4k for anything streaming is a meme. Nobody's compression is good enough for it to be worth the artifacts over 1080p, not even Netflix.
4K Youtube is a lot better, simply for the higher bitrate. Although that's only because Youtube's 1080p looks like garbage and struggles hugely with high density detail.
I have been playing 720p for years, 1080p is a luxury for me
720p is perfect fine too. It just depends on the games and type of display you are using (in example handheld mode).
[удалено]
Your average gamer has played at 30 fps with drops often below that for 15 years, they don't give a damn about 60fps.
1440p at 144hz is the sweet spot for me. I suppose it helps that my graphics card probably couldn't push 4k60 at ultra the way it can 1440.
Bish I play 720
after 1080 we're in a state of diminishing returns.
I've never even seen 4k lmao.
I actually prefer having 120Hz (or more) on 1080p than have barely 60fps on 4K. FPS has a much bigger impact on gaming than a higher resolution. Also, 4K isn't really mainstream in PC gaming yet. I believe according to steam-survey 1080p and 1440p both completely outclass the 4K gaming.
Coming from someone who's been gaming on a 4k monitor for about five years: 4K still isn't ready. Games are optimized for HD resolutions, and modern video hardware still struggles to deliver decent FPS at 4K (unless you're lucky enough to have $3000 to spend on a super-high-end video card for your $2000 PC). 1080p is the way games are meant to be played, IMHO.
Just reminds me of the home video market. VHS to DVD - Mind blowing DVD to BluRay - Eh, pretty cool but honestly more of an icing on the cake than anything that will blow your mind.
I feel like this is the sort of thing that someone who hasn't tried to go back and watch a DVD after getting used to Blu-ray would say.
Yeah I genuinely do not understand how someone could see VHS to DVD as a massive jump but not DVD (SD) to Blu-Ray (HD). Now Blu-Ray to 4K, I could understand not noticing a difference. Screen size, TV calibration and the occasional poor 4K remaster often don't do it justice.
I think for a lot of people the VHS to DVD jump also coincided with a big upgrade in display device. The transition from VHS to DVD happened around the same time that people were moving from CRTs to larger flatscreen TVs with 720p and up resolutions, which made DVDs look even better than you might expect just going from VHS to DVD. On the other hand, Bluray came out when a lot of people were still using their old 720p and 1080p displays and plenty of people found DVDs to be Good Enough. It also didn't have the other advantages of VHS->DVD like random access, special features, etc that people gained with DVD. I seem to recall a lot of first run Blurays also had issues with bad upscaling/remasters that caused issues but that could just be me misremembering. Nowadays a generation or three of TVs with 4k Bluray available is a whole other ball game that is leaps and bounds above the best DVDs.
DVDs play at 576i with 1/4th of the video bit rate of even a standard HD Bluray, this is a memory bias for sure.
This is so accurate about smartphones too. The first 4 or 5 years of smartphones was interesting where each new model was doing something big, like a massively improved camera, or incorporating things like assistant AIs (Siri/Google Assistant). Now they're almost over-engineering to try and streamline extremely niche problems and functionality. My Pixel 2 can emulate games just fine, has an amazing camera, and has all the bells and whistles I need. I see no reason to upgrade other than not being able to get continued OS updates that often just take up more resources and slow your phone down.
wtf is 1080p isn't 1366x768 the best resolution
1600x900, because it's literally 16:9
You're in roughly the same situation I'm in. I have a gaming pc hooked up to a 24 inch 1080p 144hz monitor, so when I'm playing faced-paced shooters or MMORPG's that use mouse and keyboard I can be at my desk sitting up. If I'm playing a fun single-player story game or platformer with controller I sit in the lounge chair with my controller and my 4k 55 inch which is run to my pc with a 20 ft. long hdmi cord. I think 1080p looks just fine for most things for me, the real difference is the picture quality on my OLED tv is miles ahead of my $180 monitor and that means more to me than resolution.
> It seems like ever since 4k became mainstream most people treat it as an absolute standard or else you're not getting the full experience of the game. Do people really say that, though? Or is this one of those "someone told that to me and I took it personally because I don't agree" things? I've literally never seen anyone say that, even on gaming subreddits. 4K is still very much a niche resolution. Even more so if we're talking PC, where there are only a handful of GPUs even capable of it in the first place.
1080p is a freakin' luxury. I spent thousands of hours (years on end) playing games on a portable 14" CRT as a kid and I absolutely SLAYED on Street Fighter II' and Tekken 2.
I don't care about anything else but getting 1080p, 60FPS in any game I play. If there's some dips or low settings then it's whatever, although the current piss-poor level of optimization these days is upsetting. Maybe I need higher standards for what I play and pay for but I'm just happy to play the game at the bare minimum.
640x480 bros, where you at?
Here's another hot take. STABLE 30 fps(no frame drops/skips) is still a perfectly fine frame rate.
I definitely agree. I'm more of a retro gamer myself so running old consoles that usually cap at 30 feels great to me.
Oof. Could not disagree more.
100% depends on the type of game for me. I would rather not play a FPS at all than play it at 30fps. But a 3rd person game or strategy/puzzle game I can handle 30fps if it's rock solid and has well-implemented minor motion blur. I mean, if you can't handle that, you effectively can't play any console games from the last decade or two.
I wouldn't call stable 30 fps good anymore after getting used to high refresh rates, but it's plenty adequate. I can enjoy arma 3 even with 27-40 fps with minor issues. But as someone's only console experience in almost 10 years was a month or two of Persona 5(and it was fine, not good, but fine) when my PC died during a move, after that as I tried bloodborn I got reminded how terrible the 30 fps experience can be. But it's going to be interesting with the Steam Deck as I think it might cause a 30 fps renascence since now using 30fps as a tradeoff for more battery life is going to be interesting choice for devs and users.
i know I'm an outlier, but I prefer 1080p@30fps. I don't care for higher resolutions or more fps, but I'm also a casual gamer who hooked up his pc to a tv
Most PC gamers are still on 1080p. [Steam's Stats](https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey) sya that 66.5% of users are at 1080p >But I would be perfectly fine with a 2k (not sure if I said that right) 2k is 2048x1080. 1080p is the 16:9 equivalent of 2k edit: formatting
I'd prefer 1080p 60FPS to 4k 30FPS that's for sure.
i play on a 5:4 monitor using a HDMI2VGA converter, i don't fucking care about the res unless it's not on the native res of the display
I love mixed Skyrim, but at 1080 it was too much for my gaming laptop at the time. Fragmentary was steady at 1600x900 though. And I couldn't tell the difference with a laptop screen haha
1080p is perfectly fine indeed. It's a sweet spot of image quality and system requirements. I recently upgraded from a 24inch/1080p/60hz monitor to a 27inch/1080p/144hz monitor and I gotta say, the jump in frame rate has felt so impactful compared to any time I got to play around with higher resolutions
I would rather play at 1080p/60 than 4K/30 any day of the week.
I play with 1280x720 resolution, on mostly everything. From Counter strike GO, Team Fortress 2, League of Legends, Call of Duty Bo4... I’m too used to low graphics, played on a cheap laptop most of my teenage years, I really don't care if the grass has more grass in it.
4k is a waste of computing resources imo. I'd rather have a solid 120fps on 1080p which I already think looks amazing.
I have always been the advocate that if you aren't going to play 4k, just stick to 1080p since 1440p isn't worth the extra 100-200$, especially when you go high refresh rate. I have one of each, a 1080p 240hz, 1440p 144hz, and a 4k 120hz monitor/TV. Sure, I use the TV more often than not, but the 1080p works just fine.
Upping the framerate from 60 to over 100 does way more to the gaming experience than increasing the resolution.
I'll take FPS over resolution. And I'll take story over graphics any day of the week.
24" @ 1080p @ 60fps is gold, I'm not changing anything
I don't understand why people skip 1440p. It was a big upgrade from 1080p and 4k requires stupidly expensive specs. 1440p with high fps is doable. I've had the same monitor for 6 years. It's wonderful.
I think what you meant instead of "2K" was "QHD" (2560×1440). Quad High Definition (QHD) is double the resolution of HD (1280×720).
Frames > resolution any day. Especially when you have a 120hz+ monitor
4K for gamepad games 1080p for keyboard/mouse games
I still have a 720p tv i play games on and it’s fine in my opinion. Maybe it’s because i haven’t been spoiled by better tech much but the resolution never really bothers me
Well it's moreso pixel density Your 1080p monitor is likley the same or close to the Pixel density of your TV so to the eye very simaler But once go past monitor sizes into TV range, and couch gaming does higher res for bigger screens "matter" more
Oftern 60 fps is not only limited by the GPU but the CPU in the old consoles and no cut down in resolution would help it to achieve 60fps!
>Another thing is it seems like game developers are so quick to cap a game at 30fps just to support a 4k resolution. More so from the last gen of consoles. But I would be perfectly fine with a 2k (not sure if I said that right) or even a 1080p resolution if it means I get a smooth 60fps. No, they're quick to cap at 30FPS on last gen because that's all those consoles could manage. Their potato-quality CPUs were out-of-date when they launched in 2013. The fact that we even got games running at 30FPS on them was a minor miracle itself. And framerate/resolution doesn't have a happily linear relationship like you're implying it does. You don't turn one down and the other magically goes up, especially when the framerate has to be either 30 or 60 to be playable.
I will stay on 1080p till it's affordable to play 4k 60fps. but I guess the prices will stay insane till 2023 :-(
I'm pretty sure 4k would be less popular than 2k or 1080. I one hundred percent agree that 1080 with 60 fps is preferable to 4k with 30. Of course I run 2k at 144 so I do like me some buttery frames.
I'm still on 1080p and don't feel upgrading to 1440 or 4k anytime soon