What resolution and refresh rate do you use? I want to know if it's worth going from 1080p/60Hz to 2160p/60Hz or even 2160p/144Hz.
What resolution and refresh rate do you use?
What resolution and refresh rate do you use? I want to know if it's worth going from 1080p/60Hz to 2160p/60Hz or even 2160p/144Hz.
1440p 144hz 27in
fuck UI scaling for 4k
I don't really get 1440p. You can just buy a 24" 1080p and it's basically the same PPI. You gain some screen space, but 1080p is plenty and FPS is higher. IDK. I just don't see the big benefit.
>I just don't see the big benefit
There isn't. 1440pfags are coping with their inferior stopgap resolution, which is why they have to compensate with higher refresh rates and other gimmicks.
T. 4K master race
1440P is worth. You actually get more desktop real estate than 1080p but with 4k you'd have to scale for it to be usable so it would be like running 1080p anyways
No, 4K with 150% scaling has the same screen real estate as 1440p.
*at least as far as 27" monitors are concerned
What about the 1440p 32" for blueprint document viewing? Higher resolution, doesn't tank the USB C extension port on a laptop.
I don't want a fuckhuge screen, I don't want to deal with any scaling issues, 1080p feels to cramped. 4k +120hz isn't worth it to me as I don't game a ton.
Windows 11 handles scaling just fine.
I don't use windows as a daily os.
still isn't as stable and bug free as I'd like. waylands come a long way but it still has things that push me back to x11. if I didn't run multi monitor I'd most likely use it 100% of the time, and that's simply an issue with one of my monitors disconnecting from displayport on sleep causing all sorts of bullshit no matter the OS.
Scaling is a non-issue nowadays. Even KDE Plasma on Wayland handles it very well.
24 inch 1080p ~92 ppi
27 inch 1440p ~109 ppi
both hover around 96 ppi which is the default for web and windows scaling, meaning you do not need to do anything to not suffer, yet the 109 ppi + anti aliasing in video games alongside the higher pixel count makes it feel more cinematic
I doubt you'd notice the difference between 92 and 109.
At 1 meters I notice it, but the real problem is that 27 inch is too big for me at that distance.
If you put 4k native and 1440p with anti aliasing at 27 inch side by side you probably won't notice it.
4k 27 is 163ppi. that's probably going to be noticed. it's too bad that there is only 1 real 24" 4K monitor, as it will give you 185ppi.
Not really noticeable to me. Looks as good as a tiny 300 ppi screen close to my eyes while gaming or a 27 inch 1440p.
I basically agree with this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehvz3iN8pp4
~105 ppi + good anti-aliasing/dlss is the point of diminishing returns
I mean sure, without font smoothing I can instantly tell that a screen is 120ppi or more in a context like Microsoft word/notepad but in movies or video games, no.
That video is from 2018, and they say that 4K is good for general desktop use.
That was correct even back in 2018.
> RDP on 1/4
> Teams/Slack is another 1/4
> half of it is dedicated to 6-8 terminal shells
> 1080p main monitor for a browser
Work on EZ mode.
peak pretending to work machine
>2018
irrelevant
>4K is good for general desktop use
yea and next thing you'll tell me is that you use a dark mode
27" imo is the perfect size for desktop and 32" feels like overkill.
There are probably work scenarios where you can benefit from it but then why not just buy second monitor?
I use higher PPI with DSR on 27" and it is still noticeable, I would say going past 5760 x 3240 on 27" is like a point after you start hitting real diminishing returns for too little gains in clarity.
>checked
And I think you're correct, 1440p is the new standard.
the duality of LULZ man
2160p 60hz 27in
fuck low ppi on 1440p
1080p/144Hz
800x600 90hz
4k/144 on 27".
I also own LG C2 and I can tell you no HDR meme bullshit can compare to high pixel density in vidya.
Is the 144Hz part worth the huge premium?
It's not that premium anymore, we are way past that point.
On desktop right now the hottest most expensive shit are OLED monitors at 1440p-2160p and IPS/VA with extremely high refresh rate like 360hz or 500hz.
Obviously not talking here about the cost of the rig itself to support any of this.
I say huge premium because:
40/60hz monitor = $200
4k/144hz monitor = $450
that's not too crazy, but then:
GPU for 4k/60 = ~$500 (7800XT)
GPU for 4k/144 = $950-$1,650 (7900XTX or 4090)
CPU for 4k/60 = IDK, $150 ryzen 5600 should be adequate
CPU for 4k/144 = $350 7800X3D
so you are paying a lot just go go from 4k/60 to 4k/144. That's at least $850 together. that's how I've calculated it on PCPP at least.
you don't need 4090 for 4K, I'm using 3080ti.
I'm not hitting the 144hz mark in all games but again, in single-player it doesn't matter and for MP garbage you want something higher than 144hz anyway.
>high-end CPU for 4K
CPU matters less the higher PPI you go, at 4K you just need something remotely new, top of the line is important for extremely high refresh rates.
CPU matters for high refresh rates, no matter the resolution.
yes but we are not talking about them here, pay attention
it literally says 4k/144 = 7800x3d
what "it", your information is wrong, I've on 4k144hz monitor for 2 years
i trust TPU testing
over some random homosexuals anecdote
Hardware progress will never catch up with the laziness and shittiness of devs that are in a hurry to put out yet another unoptimized trash game.
So posting averages of all games is probably the worst argument you can have in this conversation.
I disagree mostly, but TPU does use mostly new, AAA games, so it's sort of a worst-case scenario.
not sure what are you disagreeing with but modern devs barely do any optimization even for the latest hardware available to them and this trend have been going on for several years.
Every time new generation of hardware is released games are suddenly become harder to run for no apparent reason.
I think I just wrote that wrong. I don't disagree, but I don't personally care about bloated AAA stuff, and that's what these benchmarks all look at, so they are like a worst case scenario.
You definitely want a 7800X3D if you're looking for 4K/144. The 1% low with a 4090 and a 7800X3D is "only" 125. Our hardware isn't even there yet.
Completely false and extremely retarded thing to say.
no it isn't
>I want to know if it's worth going from 1080p/60Hz to 2160p/60Hz
Yes, if you increase the size of your monitor 4x as well.
>or even 2160p/144Hz
Even more so. 144Hz is great for everything. That kind of thing that you're getting used to and it seems unimportant until there are dips to 60FPS.
>GPU for 4k/144 = $950-$1,650 (7900XTX or 4090)
Only if you play latest gayems not even worth mentioning.
4k@120Hz for me. Thought you couldn't do 4k@144Hz yet on any interfaces yet without DSC. With a 3090 a lot of modern/AAA stuff isn't able to run maxed out (at least without AI upscaling), but works great for a lot of older or less graphically demanding titles.
Anyway, obviously a huge step up from my previous 1080@60Hz monitor. I've played on 2k screens before but the improvement wasn't nearly as noticeable.
IIRC, the current interfaces only can do 4k@120Hz without compression (noted above) but I haven't seen a 120Hz only 4k screen probably because the manufacturing cost isn't significant. I would say the refresh rate is very significant (and worth it), but pointless unless you've invested enough in hardware to actually be able render at that rate.
>but pointless unless you've invested enough in hardware to actually be able render at that rate
Hard disagree. You don't need to do everything at once. You might want to play a AAA movie game at 4k ultra settings but 60Hz, and another more competitive game at 1080p 120Hz. Or you could play a less demanding game at 4k 120Hz. Having a more capable monitor gives you more options, even if you don't have the hardware to choose all of them at the same time.
While your point on flexibility is true, I think resolution is still better in the PS games that I play than going from 60Hz-->120Hz. But I think my point stands that if you're not capable of rendering ANYTHING at 4k@120Hz (including older titles) then the cost difference would probably be better saved to contribute to getting a better GPU first. However it looks like the price difference isn't as much as it used to be (around 2x, but under $600 generally it seems) so there might be a person like you described who fits into that strange niche that you describe, but if they're playing AAA at ultra on 4k I don't think they'd need to make the 1080@120Hz sacrifice.
I use 1080p 144Hz, and it's fine for literally everything... EXCEPT Tabletop Simulator. When combined with the slight benefits for office stuff, my next monitor is going to be a 1440p ultrawide. I don't personally see a big benefit from 120 to 144Hz, but I would never buy a monitor with a lower refresh rate than 120Hz or without Freesync/G-sync.
24" 1440p 144hz master race
4k is a meme
60 to 120 fps is not
anything above 120fps is fine if you want it for esports but it's diminishing returns
i'd prefer 120fps 1080p to 60fps 4k
t. 4090 and 4k 120hz tv owner
I see. That's interesting. Do you play fast-paced video games?
i play all types of games including fps, and i can excuse something like darksouls only running at 60fps but games from a first person pov benefit massively from as many frames as possible
i should mention that it also depends on the person
but to me seeing the smoothness of 120hz was way more impactful than 4k, at least for gaming
3440x1440
144Hz
34" IPS
Is nano IPS worth €150 more than regular IPS? Yeah, I know it’s LG marketing, just asking for people who have tried both. Buying my first 4K/144h monitor with 7900 xtx.
4k 144hz on main
4k 137hz on 2nd
is there 4k 120hz oled already? I'd have to change 3 monitors but after working for a bit on my lg oled (my gf wanted to suck me off while I was working so I just worked from bed) even for regular wagie shit 120fps is awesome.
>all this 1440p cope
lol
If you can't notice the difference between 4K 27" and 1440p 27", you should be legally qualified as blind because it's a magnitude bigger than the difference between 1440p 27" and 1080p 27".
the retarded 4k schizo, 16 hours per day shitposting, never playing games or enjoying his screen
Wrong board
120hz, as high resolution as you can handle.
It's not stuttershit with 60hz content, but smooth as fuck for everything else
the benefit of 120hz is not the smoothness which benefits you in no way, you only perceive it as a feeling, it's the reduced input latency which your brain makes use of
1080p 144 hz is enough.
Technically the human eye can't see anything over 24 hz, but 144 is fine because 24 * 6 = 144.
Where does 144hz even come from?
Why not just 120hz? It divides perfectly by 24, 30, and 60.
24 is 1/6th of 144
Best 4k 144hz monitor?
Pref at 32"
4k/120, lg c1
1080p 24" 240hz
Once they release an OLED at this size I will jump on it.
Bros please rate my choices:
https://www.amazon.com/ASUS-Gaming-viewable-Monitor-VG32UQA1A/dp/B0BQQ5CHP2/
https://www.amazon.com/ASUS-Strix-Gaming-Monitor-XG32UQ/dp/B0BGYZXHVH/ref=psdc_1292115011_t1_B0BQQ5CHP2
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0BF5FFDH8/ref=ewc_pr_img_2?smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER&th=1
Or the Acer Predator X32 which is unobtainium for some reason
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0BKTRNRZ7?tag=rtings-mn-p-no-api-20&ie=UTF8&th=1