Gaming at 4K is stupid!!!
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 окт 2021
- Is playing at 1440p on a 4K monitor actually good now?
My system:
CPU: AMD Ryzen 9 5950X amzn.to/3a6NZTO
Cooler: Arctic Liquid Freezer II 360 amzn.to/3Ddrqts
Mobo: Gigabyte X570 AORUS Elite amzn.to/3laFVIh
RAM: Crucial Ballistix 3600 CL 16 amzn.to/3iyZdoM
SSD: Samsung 980 Pro amzn.to/3BfkKds
SSD: Samsung 970 Evo Plus amzn.to/3aFYIVO
Case: Phanteks Eclipse P600S amzn.to/3A3fLeE
PSU: Super Flower Leadex III Gold 850W amzn.to/3Bo9HyZ
GPU: AMD RX 6800 XT amzn.to/2YeMT63
Monitor: LG C1 48 inch OLED amzn.to/3nhgEMr
What equipment do I use to make my videos?
Camera: Sony a6100 amzn.to/3wmDtR9
Camera Lens: Sigma 16mm f/1.4 amzn.to/36i0t9t
Capture Card: Elgato CamLink 4K amzn.to/3AEAPcH
Mic: My actual mic (AT 3035) is out of production but this is a similar mic (AT 2020) amzn.to/3jS6LEB
Portable Mic attached to camera: Rode Video Micro amzn.to/3yrT0R4
Audio Interface: Focusrite Scarlett 2i2 3rd Gen: amzn.to/3wjhlad
Greenscreen: Emart Collapsable amzn.to/3AGjQXx
Lights: Neewar Dimmable USB LED amzn.to/3yw4frD
RGB Strip Backlight on desk: amzn.to/2ZceAwC
Sponsor my channel monthly by clicking the "Join" button:
/ @danielowentech
Donate directly to the channel via PayPal:
www.paypal.com/donate?hosted_...
Disclaimer: I may earn money on qualifying purchases through affiliate links above. 
Наука
I have the LG C1 paired with a 3090 … can’t hit 120fps on most games without DLSS or FSR, but the image is so smooth due to G-Sync and VRR. And the HDR is amazing in game. I don’t regret it one bit
1440p looks great on that tv
i sold my 2080ti and went console only for a while, but couldnt stay away. i bought a 6800xt and couldnt get it to play nice with my LG b9 2020 tv. where as my old Nvidia card worked perfectly with it.
I’ve seen lots of videos of people using 21:9 resolutions on the C1. Since the blacks are real black, the black bars don’t stand out.
I’ve been trying to do this but can’t work out how to do it properly without the display or the GPU trying to stretch it. Not sure of the right process for creating the custom resolutions and retaining full HDR10 support, if that’s possible
@@Natedaskate I just did it now with my G1 and GTX1650 and it worked fine, I had scaling set to aspect ration.
Yeah, I have a 3080ti, actually two. They can’t push my C1 to 120 but I’m pretty solid around 70-80 fps. That’s where the benefits of G-Sync come in. When the frame rate drops drastically you don’t notice really.
Daniel Owen: *hypes up his 4K 120hz OLED*
My wallet: *stares at me threateningly* "Don't."
There's always a link in my description and it's currently on sale ;) but seriously make good financial decisions and only purchase I'd you can afford it lol
@@danielowentech I think that it is too much money for the return. Also the 6800XT isn't nearly as great at ray-tracing as what Nvidia has to offer. I'm using a 1440p/144hz G-Sync monitor with an RTX 2080 Super and it works great for RT, when using DLSS.
Even without FSR or DLSS I think it's still viable to play 1440p on a 4K as many games these days have a render scale setting. You set your resolution to 4K and setting scale to 60-70%. Which yes... you can't get 1440p exactly on a 4K screen with a % slider but you can get close. So that way you can still have a nice 4K UI and HUD but ease up in the rendering requirements.
Sorry but having 2 4k monitors and a RTX 3080 (previously a 1080), I completely disagree, its the same thing as getting a 144hz monitor and never wanting to go back. In competitive games I find myself noticing enemies from across the map that don't even register on 1080p. And at least for me, a regular dude who's never going pro, 60hz is plenty for my reflexes and flicks, and a higher refresh rate really won't fix my aim haha. And running 1440p on a 4k monitor looks worse than 1080p for some reason, unless you have a specific thing like DLSS. Just my experience. Once a cheaper 4k 144hz comes out, I'll definitely jump on it. But for $300, I'd always go 4k 60hz over any 1440p monitor.
@@00000005547 same, i have a 5k 120hz VR headset right now and its simply stunning and its simply so stunning that 1080p is just dead and old to me, i also pre ordered another VR headset that has according to reviewers and the people from varjo themselfes human eye resolution with a PPD of 70 while the avarage human eye has 65 so when i try that kind of crazy resolution i will probably never go back to something under 4K lol
If you have the horsepower to run the game the way you like at 4K, then if course by all means do it. But just don't write off going sub 4K on a 4K display if you need the performance. It's not terrible these days between upscaling tech and internal res scalers.
@@00000005547 it's the math of how you divide the pixels. 1080p goes evenly into 4k. 1440p does not. Letting the display decide how the pixels are split (setting the actual screen resolution to 1440p) is different from letting the game engine decide (setting to 4k but using a lower render resolution). Because the game can still anti alias to a 4k grid instead of the 1440p grid.
@@shashumga6766 varjo Aero?
Old video but I can relate to going big all at once, and holding out for massive future improvement. I just upgraded from my 980Ti 1440p setup from about 10 years ago, to 4090 FE and C3 OLED. Really knocks my socks off just how much of an improvement it is. And I will keep this setup for probably another 10 years before I upgrade, but I'll be 50 by then (eek). For me it was more about maxing out 1440p at the time of purchase, and waiting until 4k ultra settings at above 100fps became possible before upgrading.
I like doing the same things. Really feel the difference rather than minor improvements
That's the right way to do it.
Used the same strategy! went from a GTX 970 to a 4090 recently, wont be tempted to upgrade anytime soon.
..unless for some reason the almost meme number generation is gonna be a banger (6090, unlikely though.)
I have 38 curved dell monitor, and LG C2 by side.First I thought I will use C2 only for gaming and movies, but more and more I use it daily. I think only on tv can one appreciate 4k, 38 ultrawide has way less area, it's incomparable.
I don't think it will last for 10 years in terms of technology, it will definitely outdate in 5 years
Sounds like me, 1080 Ti and a high-end 1440p monitor for the past 6 years. (and it still slays in 1440p).
Now have a 4090, and shopping for the right 4k monitor (harder to find).
Completely agreed, I had a 4K120 monitor on loan from work to replace my 1440p144Hz (both 27"). Returned it recently and I'm immediately disappointed to be back at 1440p, even for 1440p content.
Completing agreed! I went from 4k 60hz to 1440p 165hz and instantly regretted. Now I'm on CX 4k 48 OLED.
Try dldsr to 4K…
I would chose 1440p 144hz over 4k every day of the week
@@Alex-bl8uhresolution means nothing without the high native framerates to back it up. Framerate response and smoothness are much more important than extra fancy graphics and gimmick tech demos effects that can't even be run at high framerates natively on a $2000+ highest end GPU lol.
@@leanlifter1 so you agree with me?
I particularly like the scaling function when it is available, on my 1440p monitor I usually do anywhere from 1.2-1.4x, 4K is doable but the monitor technology isn't there yet (in terms of quality, 32" sizes etc.), it will be coming soon though, maybe within the next year.
Absolutely and i think on 1,5x 1440 p it looks better than 4k without AA. 4k is no holy grail, it still pixels at the edges if you dont use AA or DSR.
I think the built in upscaler on the LG CX I have, and almost no doubt a C1 by extension, already does a great job. Even playing my switch or games at 1080p on the CX looks better than my 1080p ips monitor, and not just because of the better colors and motion clarity. I think the ups along process essentially gives you free AA, getting rid of jaggies while still preserving detail, as least that’s how it looks to me. I love my CX even if I can’t run native 4k in most games, but I agree in it making me want to upgrade sooner than I normally would!
This guy is the whiter than Casper the ghost 😂
@@bazle64Got a problem with Whites, woman?
Now that there is 32" 144Hz UHD monitors for under $1000, it is beginning to be interesting to play at this definition. So if I had to buy a monitor today, I would probably choose an UHD one
Got an LG C1 after seeing your video. Got a nice monitor arm and have been enjoying gaming on all my consoles and PC on this TV. 4K is pretty awesome too my RTX 3090 is finally getting a workout now. Came from a 34in 3440x1440 ultrawide.
There are so many technologies that can do this: FSR, DLSS, TAAU, FidelityFX Resolution Scaling, and the myriad of built in "home grown" upscalers out there. Not to mention that nearly all modern monitors and TVs have some kind of enhancement over "just stretch it and do colour average for each pixel in the native matrix". For most people the days are long gone where dropping resolution was an automatic application of The Horrendous Vaseline Filter(TM). Obviously the ones that are built in to the games work the best. Second choice is driver provided solution (for those who can actually figure out how to make a per-game profile), and lastly, if you're SOL, let the monitor/TV do the trick.
Always remember the correct viewing distance for 99% of people is sitting seeing the entire screen without turning your head.
That's how you count pixels. If you can't count pixels, you ain't close enough.
@@dra6o0n with a 27" 1440p or 32" 4k monitor you don't see any pixels regardless of distance. :)
@@seizonshaYou also can't even see your crosshairs or even simple text lol. To high PPI is losing details because you cannot see them as they are to small. 4k was designed as a cinema resolution for big screen TVs 50"+. 1440p was designed for use with computer monitors of much smaller sizes than that of their big cinema 4k TV counterparts.
Great channel, glad it popped up a week ago for me!
I totally agree with you about maxing out settings and spoiling myself with the lg c1. I wish I had a stronger gpu but my Xfx Rx 6800 does a pretty good job at high settings in most hard to run titles but easy older titles run flawlessly.
@Lurch that's pretty good scores but those are just benchmark scores and don't represent what you would get during actual gameplay with any game. Ive had Xfx cards in the past too never had them fail in anyway. I usually undervolt my cards and keep the fan speeds down typically stay around 900rpm and my temps stay super low with the Xfx rx 6800. I enjoy it and I got it for a steal right during the crypto boom so I'm happy with it and most of my games I play run over 60fps on my c1 at 4k. I mostly play the Assassin's Creed franchise and other aaa single player games. Otherwise I play on my Dell S27dgf 1440p 165hz monitor.
Thanks! This video helped me decide that I should stick to 1440p and be fiscally responsible.
Game engine render scaling also produces a much better image on 4K. Like Cyberpunk 2077 at 50% render on 4K looks dramatically better than 1080p does, only slightly worse than native 4K, but gets about the same framerate 1080p does.
You're better off using a higher resolution with a lower DLSS setting too if you can, than just playing at the lower resolution. The extra clarity actually can help a lot in some games.
because 50% render from 4k IS indeed a higher resolution than 1080p.
1080p would be 25% from 4k.
@@mydroidx1013 50% scaled at 4K is 1080p. The scaling factor is applied to both dimensions of the resolution, since 4K is 3840x2160 that gets you 1920x1080. That's even on nvidia's DLSS chart showing the effective render scale at 50%.
That's because 50% isn't 1080p.
There is actually one more thing that is worth noticing - content consuming quality. I'm not talking about RUclips which is 99,99% of the times 60fps 1080p, but something like huge huge movies with outstanding visuals in 4k - definitely worth it in my eyes. I've watched the avengers at 42' oled 4k display - there is no coming back from that.
I agree with you on the subject of upscaling tech has gotten a lot better to a point where integer upscaling is no longer needed to maintain a good looking image, however a 240hz 2k monitor is still a lot cheaper than a 240hz 4k monitor. In fact you can buy a 240hz 2k to play games on, + a 60hz 4k display to watch movies and stuff and still have some money left.
I had a 60hz 4k monitor I tried for a while, went to a 1440p 165hz and had to go back. The image quality downgrade was noticeable and I had a nice enough card (6900 XT) to play at 4K at well above 60 fps in most games even at ultra settings. So I picked up an IPS 4k 120hz and have been very happy since then. And now that FSR is getting popular, there's no reason to go back.
Yeah this is the first time I disagree with dr. Owen here. Basically I just wanted to game at 4k. That was all I wanted for the 30/600 series. That was also my main goal for this year, all I wanted was just an affordable entry to 4k gaming, and, but well here we are lol so much for 40 series looking remotely attractive.
1440p looks MUCH better than 1080p. Can't say for certain 4k, but heard it's not as big an uplift 1440 to 4k as 1080 to 1440, but yeah, I refuse to use FSR or DLSS. If I have to use an upscaler is saying "this hardware can't do that." Upscaling has been a thing for decades; it wasn't a standard before for a reason. So. To me is about running native.
I don't see the point to upscale for literally the same exact reason I see zero reason for using RT+DLSS because why would I pay out the ass to slash my framerate for pretty lights, only to blur/smudge/artifact/ghost the entire rendered scene only to get some not all fps back? So now it looks worse and gets lower fps, great much wow. So to me, it's literally the same type of thing, why would I pay so much for 4k, just to completely ruin the experience with upscaling??? High fidelity is the whole point. And yes I am willing to pay for this kind of experience, it's just this year was supposed to see the $400-450 7700XT match 6800XT so you can game at 4k with a midrange card. If I can't game at 4k I have literally no reason to upgrade GPU right now otherwise.
@@drek9k2 4k vs 1440p depends A LOT on the size of the screen and how close your face is to it and I don't see that being mentioned here
6900 XT… 4k 60fps ultra? I doubt it man my 4070ti OC struggles most games.. high settings yes, DLSS 3.0 getting much better like cyberpunk runs well at high. What other specs you running?
@richie231186 At the time, I was running an X570 am4 board / 5950 / 32 gigs with 6900 XT reference water cooled with a decent OC. On bf 2042. I would get easily over 60 fps in ultra mode (no RT).
@@drek9k2 seems like you don’t have experience with modern upscalers, it’s absolutely as good as native and in some areas better. Most issues with DLSS can be fixed with a simple dll swap.
Essentially, what this video is saying is if someone offers you luxury box seats to a sports event, be warned that once you are acclimated to the luxury, you will never want to go back to public stadium seating.
Same with flying. Once you have been on a trans atlantic flight in business class you can't go back to economy.
Dan, you seem to be on the happy meds today. I'm glad you're getting the most out of your LG C1 4K OLED and yes it needs a good powerful card to run it. When I get enough together I'll go down the same route BTW I hope you and your family have an excellent Halloween 🎃
Just lots of coffee today lol! Happy Halloween!
@@danielowentech glad to see you enjoying the day still on Far Cry 6 excellent gameplay BTW
This makes me review my build. Thanks.
Tried out WotR a few days ago in 1440p on my C1 and was surprised that it looked really good, too.
Regarding your great use case argument:
100% agree. I'm a non-competitive "sightseeing" gamer (I love singleplayer games with beautiful graphics, especially RPGs, but I enjoyed HZD and WD:L very much too and I'm soooo looking forward to the GoW PC release....), and for me the most important update in the last few years was VRR technology.
40 FPS with G-Sync is actually much better than 50 FPS on a 60 Hz screen without.
Yeah, or Freesync.
Free and G sync are both just rebranded VESA Adaptive Sync industry wide open standard. Nvidia and AMD just pay royalties to VESA to rebrand the tech in their name. Agreed Adaptive sync is the best new tech along with HDR as they are not cheap gimmicks that take away performance and or image quality at the same time lol like fakeframes and RT lol.
What is Wotr
@@PolarbearYGT
Pathfinder: Wrath of the Righteous
One of my favorite games of all times.
I have a 4k120 TV for simracing on a mid range pc (3060ti FE incoming!!!-lucky) . Games with TAA resolution scalers are actually very good. But yeah can confirm 1440p looks blurry close up, but actually when using casually, a good 3-4m far away, it's really hard to tell.
4k on a big huge TV would probley have similar PPI as a 1440p 31.5" monitor.
People bashing 1440p while I’m here still playing 1080 for the past 11 years
4k demands 4080 or an 7900xtx minimum for gpu heavy titles to stay above 60fps + higher refresh rate > higher resolution + true HDR capable 4k screens are really expensive + 4k doesn't make sense at any size below 30inch so ++$$
Daniel, I just bought the Alienware aw3423dwf. I'm looking forward to that resolution and ultrawide screen, but I also have a 4070ti. Am I not getting my money's worth for that new GPU if I'm not playing at 4k? Or do you think I'll be ok because I"ll get a much smoother experience in many more games at the reduced resolution. Really enjoy your videos, keep it up!
4070Ti will struggle at 4k; you made the right choice.
1440p ftw. I had a 22" 1080p monitor and switched to a 27" 1440p one and the difference is huge. But honestly, I don't see a a reason to have a 4k panel. The trade for performance doesn't look great, specially for a 3070, which is my card. Maybe in the future. But not today. I know DLSS makes performance better as you said. But I rather use DLSS at 1440p. Better lifetime for my GPU, I guess
same card and resolution as you, agree on all points.
Now you really have to rethink bc these 40 series making 4k the sweet spot now lol
Gaming at 4k in 2023 is really wonderful
Hey do you use your OLED for text/productivity work? hows the burn in? i want a single monitor setup.
I feel like my 4k monitor was one of my worst purchases ever. I used to run it with a 5700XT and got by but it was just too many pixels. I tried my 2080Ti and it still sucked. I got a 3090 and it was much better, but still not what I want out of a monitor. I dont want to turn down a bunch of visual settings to get a decent framerate. I ended up using my 3090 for mining and watching 4k content. I got a 6900XT and an ultrawide 1440p monitor, and I'm SOOOOOO much happier now! Not to mention how bright this ultrawide is! The perfect blacks of OLED are nice, but a really pure bright white is also important, at least to me...probably even more important than deep blacks.
The point is, you don't need to play games at 4k just play them at 2k and still get 144hz.
@@alexandru3788 💯
OLED as a monitor isn't an option for me anyway., Not because of burn in concerns because could use it as a gaming only secondary display but they're too damn big. Ideally I'd love a 32" one but maybe I'd settle for 40.
Still the way I look at it is that FSR and DLSS are not universally applied because they aren't in every game so I wouldn't buy say a 1440p card and build a 4K oriented build that relies on upscaling or reconstruction to fill my display natively. It all comes to personal preference in the end though and I'd rather use a 4K card on a 1440p high fps build. Things are changing but I still believe native resolution is king, it's the way the game was designed to be played, it's not blurred or details added or removed or sharpened etc.
I have 32" 4k Samsung monitor and mine friend calibrated it 😋 . Colours after calibration are sweet like 10x more colourfull now + improved shadow details 🙂😃😁 Monitors are as well great, just best after calibration with profi equipment & real measurements.😉🙂
I just got a 28" 4K 144Hz monitor with G-Sync for $450. Such an awesome deal. Upgraded from a 32" 1440p monitor. The pixel density is much much higher. Driving it with an RTX 3080 laptop
Probably with fake hdr tho.
@@tmsphere of course it's the fake HDR400. I sold it, though, and now game on an LG B2 OLED with an RTX 4080 laptop. Loving my setup
Tbh pcs are one of the cheapest hobbies like your say. Even racing a basic car for a year is going to set you back $5000-10,000 a year in maintaining, fueling and entering. Plus all the equipment and tools you need.
Although it has got more expensive in the past year or two, it has been moving at a decent pace unlike the dark ages where we go 20 gens of 4c8t bintel while AMD was pushing out pileofpoodriver.
This is what I have to remind myself when I feel bad about spending a few hundred upgrading my rig, hell sone golf clubs cost more than my whole PC, and we won’t even get into vehicle modding!
I I know this is older but this advice is absolutely spot on I have a55 in 4k 144hz TV with a 4080 I will never go back!
Play 4k on a 1440p Monitor 💪💪Its wayyy cheaper and looks same to go with 1440p and use DSR at 1,5-2x 💫. 4k gpu and screen is exponential more expensive.💷💷
DSR can render the game with up to 4x the 1440p res and downscale it to 1440p. It looks super crisp on 1440p screen, BETTER than 4k without AA. More like 1440p with 32xAA
This Video was ahead of it's time. Thinking of buying a M32uc Monitor. (4k 144hz)
For me, I look at 4K as unnecessary for gaming. I played at 1080p for a long time, and just bought bigger displays as the years went by. I only recently decided to dabble into a higher resolution after I got my 6800 XT. My 32" 1080p 60hz monitor was not enough for my upgraded HEDT PC so I went up to 1440p 165hz display, and I'm satisfied with my choice. I'm not going to ever go 4K PC display. But I probably will get a 4K front projector HDTV, someday.
You had a 32in 1080p? Are you sitting 8 ft back from your monitor? I can see pixels on that big of a 1080 pretty easily from normal desk distances.
Hey fellow projector 📽 enthusiast I game 1080p 165hz for fps shooters and 1080p 120 hz hdr projector dsr 4K looks incredible. Will upgrade to 4K 120hz projector when cards can actually run that in a couple of years
This is what most people who never used a 4K monitor for more than a week says.
@@paul2609 even in a game like valhiem which has really low resolution everything I can tell the difference between 1080, 1440, and 4k and that's only on a 27in monitor.
@@No-One.321You can't even comfortably read text on a tiny little 27" 4k monitor let alone see all the rest of the details you are missing out on such a small screen with big resolution.
My Dell Ultrawide is starting to die, weird dark blotchy spots that are getting bigger. I think the diffuser layer is melting or separating. Thinking about picking up an LG OLED to replace it as an OLED will never have that issue. My GTX 1070 will not be able to drive it at 4k but at 1440p it might just be good enough, especially in games with FSR support.
Can we use 4K on 55" TV screen instead of monitor, if yes whats the procedure of it? can we hear gaming sound from TV as well or we should need to buy speakers?
I have a Samsung Odyssey Neo G7 43" 4K 144Hz HDR600 Monitor. Depending on the game I use it in either 4k or 1440. At 1440 typically 32" is the most I would say the resolution looks good on without looking all pixelated. BUT, with a 4K screen @1440, you get all of the pixel density of 4k but the 1440 image doesn't look pixelated or stretched. Its a Monitor that can last me a very long time and across multiple GPU upgrades.
Oh, and to those that are thinking that I overpaid for that monitor, I got it 50% off during the Amazon Prime Day sale for only $500.
Seriously, some of my best gaming experiences were over 20 years ago when I played at 800 x 600. 1440p only looks bad if you become used to 4k, otherwise you can live without it. Funnily enough, I used to enjoy watching movies before 4k and HD as well. Remember, 4k might seem cool today but it's tomorrow's crap.
I see a lot of people saying they can’t tell the difference between 4K and 1440p and that’s probably true on a 27-32” LCD monitor but the jump in image quality from 1440p LCD to 4K OLED is Huge! 1440p looks pretty blurry by comparison
absolutely correct
Yep. I HAVE to game in 4K because I have a 65 inch tv and anything less looks blurry. I have a 5600x and 6800xt. I just usually run low settings in games to get the highest frames possible because it still looks great at low settings. I avg over 150fps on most games like destiny 2 and battlefield so 4K low seems to be my sweet spot.
@@thatsamazin- Well, I'm running a 3080 with an 10850k on a 48 LG 120 hertz and yes 1440 looks blurry and almost like 1080p. So I rather lower the setting at high or medium and enjoy the crisp details of 4k.. By the way, where and how did you get the 6800xt?
I use a 27" 170hz 1440p IPS display with a 5900X and RX 6800 XT. It's perfect. I tried to aim for a 4K card but use it in a 1440p setup and have plenty of hardware fuel for a high fps playstyle with maxed out settings natively first. I don't think I'm ready for a 4K display but if I do it won't be bigger than 40". Anything above that on my desk just feels too big. I don't want to have to turn my head to look at mini maps etc. It just doesn't appeal to me personally.
Most people don't even have the monitors or tv for a side by side comparison. I thought my IPS was excellent until I got my OLED CX 48".
I would like for you to revisit this topics like 4k gaming and ultra wide gaming most especially with the current day gpu's
Many thanks for the video. I have the money to buy the 4090 and a 4k 144Hz monitor but...
Am I really going to enjoy the game THAT much?
TOTALLY TRUE!!!! Both me and my father switched from 4k to a LG Ultragear 1440p 165hz 32 inch monitors from Costco and man my father is loving the hell out of that monitor. Everything to him is smooth as butter instead of 60hz. :)
Resolution is relative to size and distance. You can't make resolution recommendations without taking screen size and seating distance into account. While it's fair to assume PC gamers are primarily seated at a desk we can take seating distance foe granted. So if you are gaming on a display larger than 34", 4k is easily recommendable, while 1440p works at 34" and below.
Me : *proceeds to put the video to 4k at my 1080p monitor*
With the upscaling technologies we have today, 1440p on a 4K monitor is better, but one thing to keep in mind is that 4K monitors are more expensive, as well as the fact that you still need a stronger GPU to drive a 4K monitor, seeing as turning settings down to medium or low would be a waste. So in the end, it all comes down to budget. 1440p is the sweet spot at the moment, seeing as you need at least a 3080 to truly enjoy 4K, and that's not exactly the tier of cards the vast majority of gamers have.
With AMD going strong in the GPU market, though, this could easily change in a generation or two, thanks to competition.
I just built my first gaming PC and people are telling me that I can’t game at 4k because I only have a 4070ti.
@@dauntae24Those people think that PC gaming means turning the settings to pre configured Ultra and if the GPU does not run it @ 4k and 500+fps is garbage. Typically this is because they don't have a clue on how to dial in the settings and turn them down lol for their hardware. The 4070ti can natively run 99% of all games @ 4k high not ultra settings especially when you turn off the rt gimmicks in the two games that support them lol.
the main problem with 4k monitors for competitor players is the size of the screen. with 1080p 24 Inch u can notice whats happening faster and u wont need to look around
tell that to RTS players, with higher resolution you can usually see much more compared to 1080p
With a bigger frame 1440p/4k 32" you see more and pan the camera less. 24" 1080p is a very very narrow view and requires allot more panning of the camera because you see allot less information in each frame.
I have two 34 inch ultra wides. One Is 120hz and the other is 144hz. Both are IPS and G-Sync. The look great no doubt.
However, my 65 inch C1 blows them away. Such a better gaming experience.
Are you console or PC gaming on the 65”?
@@cliffordduhh45 PC. 3090ti
@@OhItsThatI just don't believe you can't tell the difference in refresh rate.
@@tmsphere But he can definitely tell which one is OLED lol
this is more true even now... in my opinion 4k is a new standard for high fidelity gaming... the games benefit big time from 4k render resolution... especially if TAA and FSR or DLSS is involved... these games just need the base resolution to put out a clear image... playing modern games at FHD resolution just looks way to blurry and fuzzy... this is because of the anti aliasing technigue... older games with msaa look good at FHD...
BUT: if you got 4k rendering going on, the games profit alot from taa and stuff because it has the ability to smooth out lines really nice... altough there are things i dont like about taa like the blurr, or artefacts... its crazy that so many games have weird artefacts going on...
seeing the 6950xt getting sold for around 600 euros, and below, really is something...
and the ability to set the resolution to 8k in not so demanding titles like most of the halo titles is crazy ... bye bye fizzy lines...
halo reach for example, it looks so good at 8k... gives older games new life...
DLSS and upscalers just make everything blurry and give everything a weird halo effect though. Might as well be running at a 1440p with antialiasing. DLSS and upscalers are just a gimmick
Like trading real gold standards of old for new fake bronze gimmicks lol.
Tha links Daniel this is just what I needed to try a 4k panel out
I went from a 600p viewsonic back in the day playing Runescape, to a 1080p LED with horrible view angles, to a 1440p mac monitor with good color accuracy, to an ASUS 4K 144Hz 27inch with G-Sync, I really will never ever ever ever ever look back. I agree 100% with how much the DLSS and FSR upscalers are compared to not having the technology and relying on perfect pixel scaling. I love having high frame-rates in both single player and multiplayer games, north of 90 minimum which I why I went with a 4K 144Hz. Sure it's not ultra settings, it's optimized settings, which provide a crystal clear beautiful fluid experience with densely packed pixels makes all the difference
I played 4k on my tv
Couch gaming is better suited for that
When i go competitive the aoc 24G2 with 1080p144 is my go to monitor
3060ti is good enough
Can't go back, my two monitors are 163PPI and I love the clarity.
Just got the LG C1 OLED 48" as a monitor. Friggin amazing. Nuff said.
It's stupid that monitors these days don't even have a gloss option and have fallen far behind TV's in image quality, so that a 48" TV is the best monitor today, but it is what it is.
Before I got the C1 I went and checked out the Samsung Neo G9 and it was junk by comparison. Ugly matte, weird looking, not tall enough and much worse image quality than a modern TV.
Why can't someone make a 40" 4k OLED or QLED/FALD monitor, with a normal aspect ratio and curved and gloss options? Ridiculous that we need a TV to upgrade from 30" monitors.
TVs have typically always had the upper hand in image quality and PC monitors have always been junk but they are getting allot better and starting to catch up with big screen TVs image quality.
I still agree to that.
2016 people were saying WOW we have a true 4k card with the 1080 ti...it could run games and it was nothing but decent.
2018 people were saying 1080 ti was ok but not a real 4k card. The 2080 ti...yep was good could handle some games but still not there.
2020 we have the almighty 3080 people are saying 2080 ti was a scam and not a 4k card. Now the 3080 is a decent piece of hardware but still struggle in A LOT of titles.
We are still not 4k ready in my opinion. From now id say 3~ years and we are there.
I wouldnt buy a 4k monitor but everyone can decide and choose, thats the good thing.
But I guess my point in this video is that now the 3080 can play upscaled 1440p on a 4k screen using dlss that doesn't look as good as native 4k but does look better than native 1440p whereas in 2016 the 1080ti couldn't do that.
The 1080 ti WAS a 4k card in 2016. Games were easier to run and 4k also meant 4k/60 so yeah. 1080 ti was certainly a 4k capable card back then. Then the 2080 ti had to contend with 120hz monitors and fell short especially with the 2018 games getting demanding.
@@danielowentech Oh yeah sure i got the point of the vid. Ima just no fan of upscaling technology. I personally have a true 1440p running full details at 60 or more FPS rather than 4k and having to change to medium details. Might be possible that 4k gives u a sharper look but changing details, specially on shadows and textures makes to game look worse again, so there is no point of changing resolution to 4k if u have to lower everything else to get a 60 FPS. @ 1440p iam basically always safe to hit 60 FPS + max details even on the most demanding games.
@@christophermullins7163 Even before that, the entire marketing around the Fury was it was a 4K card, which launched 2 weeks apart from the 980ti. Altho back then of course 60Hz was your limit at that resolution.
Games getting more demanding over time is a thing that has always happened. What doesnt happen as often is moving up the refresh rates. So in 2018 when we got both higher resolution and higher refresh rates, suddenly people did start saying that 4K wasnt possible somehow because it cant (or in reality - just harder*) to hit those frame rates, they seem to just ignore there are quite a few numbers between 60 and 144. I dont personally consider something a fail because it cant lock on to the highest FPS. I have my own preference of what is acceptable and while I enjoy higher refresh rates, I am good at anything over 60 - its a bonus. And you absolutely can game at 4K at over 60 in the vast majority of things.
Thats the other wonderful argument they roll out - X game cant run at X frame rate therefore the entire thing is a fail..... (?!) So **** the other 14K games out there then??
4090: allow me to introduce myself
I went 4k when I bought my 1080ti and haven't looked back. I'm now using a 3090 ftw3 and decided to stick to 60hz instead of 120hz simply because even with dlss you can't always play at max details and for me a steady 60 is butter smooth even with shooters.
I used to think 60fps locked Vsync was great until I tried a 165hz panel with Adaptive Sync. No screen tearing no Vsync needed. Adaptive Sync and HDR are the best new tech that actually makes games better without tanking performance but making it much much better at the same time.
@@leanlifter1 Heh, yeah I recently bought a hisense u8k 55" 144hz vrr set and its been great. It has wide range vrr that goes from 48~144hz so the image is smooth no matter the fps. You do start to notice a bit of frame drops if you go much under 60fps but with competitive settings I'm hitting the upper limits anyways. This new crop of high end tv are very nice for gaming and not all that more expensive than a comparable dedicated pc display.
@@nonaurbizniz7440 Never tried VRR I just have a Samsung G5 1440p 32" it has Adaptive Sync Free Sync premium and G sync branded. Monitors are actually decent now in days. 10+ years ago you really could not find a decent quality monitor even for $500+ from a top brand they were all absolutely terrible but at leased their were high quality Sony 1080p TVs to use as a stop gap until something great came along a decade+ later lol.
Not having as much experience as you I can agree with what you’re saying 👍🏻
I LOVE gaming in 4k ULTRA.. my target was keeping ultra settings at 60 fps with my 2080 Ti and I can run 99% games in that setting. Moving from a 34" ultrawide to my LG 43" IPS monitor is the best thing ever! always wanted a big screen experience monitor, not a tv. And I love it! The colors, the sharpness.- is amazing... I will NEVER go back from 4K gaming. I can agree that a 27" 4K is ridiculous stupid. But 4K 43" IPS = YES BABY!
Yup 4K @ 27" you can't even see or read icons on the desktop without scaling then up to where they look to big for the small screen lol. I guess the PC gamers that game on such tiny monitors have their eyes three inches from the screen at all times lol. I agree go bigger on the monitor/TV so you can actually see everything.
@@leanlifter1haha I could imagine! I have since changed my screen for a LG 42" OLED and even on that I run 125% Windows scale! :) So I cant imagine a 27"! :) But over time I have found this to be a very good sweet spot. 42". Big to have the "big screen expereience" and still "small" enough to have in front as desktop solution. I love my C2 LG.
It depends on what you play. If he plays more story games, then 60Hz is enough, where he will enjoy a sharper image and ultra details. For multiplayer 1440P.
you can have both 4K and 120Hz
@@ALPHABYTE941440p 240Hz> 4k 120hz. People who play story games dont count as gamers.
@@itsv1p3r xd, fortnite does count as a game
@@itsv1p3r ofc 4k 120hz > 1440p 240hz
I play cs2, Rainbow Six, Racing games and games like Factorio
I got a Samsung 4K monitor and a Radeon AMD 7900 XT and runs everything ultra like butter ^_^ I got amazed everytime I play.
Playing RDR2 and Ghost of Tsushima at 4k in HDR is SO SICK, and I can't believe how much more defined the clarity is. It's a whole new level. It's kind of like going from 60 to 144 fps (for AAA games. I don't play E-sports) where 60 fps is still totally okay, but the responsiveness and smoothness is surely missed if you can't hang with current hardware.
I have a 3070ti laptop that gets 12200 in timespy, which is more than an avg 3060ti desktop. Can this card do 4k on most games? I don't need ultra settings, high med is fine.
Can you please do a video how I would do it in the far or dlss do I hon in game change the resolution to 1440p and turin on dlss on quality???
This vid seems really gaming centric. Is there DLSS for desktop/office?
I got the GIGABYTE M32U at the end of last year. It does 4k at 144Hz and I got it for around $500. With my 6800 XT, I get 90+ frames at high to max settings in most games I've tried without FSR.
I play on a 3840 x 1600 38" monitor. Games, particularly the FOV, look absolutely amazing at that type of resolution if the game supports it of course.
Your eyebrow is very animated. This isnt negative
I just bought a m32u 4k monitor for gaming.. now I’m wondering if that was a mistake?
Well it will still look great but you aren't seeing the most out of what 4k has to offer until about 50"+ big screen TVs are what it is for to maintain clarity and sharpness like 1440p @ 32".
I can barely get a consistent 144hz @ 1440p out of a stupid expensive 6900XT so i have zero interest in 4k. Sure i'd love 16k for the pixel size and the weird pixel effect some games have (which isn't even gone on my 14 inch 4k laptop). If you scale that up to a 28 inch screen even 8k won't remove that so 16k just might but there is just no way to drive that much pixels. And if we even get there in a decade from now that doesn't even take into account the fact games get better and better looking = less fps (slowly but it's happening). I think 1080p/1440p with amazing graphics beats 4k/8k/16k gaming on low anytime despite the pixel effects that can be irritating.
Also it's great yet worrying that despite implementation ease DLSS seems to get more implementation. And applications like magpie don't seem to be it for me. They force you to run in a window which costs performance and latency to begin with.
And yeah i play every game max settings for regular play. Only battlefield 5 i turn down as low as possible (except for the textures). Every fps matters but sadly BF5 is CPU capped hard.
MAN is in LOVE with his LEDtv.
Keep in mind though that every panel has pros and cons and u better be specific about your needs before buying, like: do u have a bright room or lots of lightsources hitting ur screen? Is it for gaming only or for movies or work too? Do u occasionally watch from an angled position? are u more into darker colored games/ movies/whatever? Even oled isnt the best for everything and there are issues with burned in pixels on oled screens if the displayed image doesnt change for a long time, like ur non moving desktop for example (but I heard oleds got better with that).
And I wont even start on the hertz sub topic.
I think Daniel might be right and 4k screens got a lot cheaper too since the vids upload. But especiallyu now u have to do your research, not only about your specific needs and circumstances, but probably about old 4k oled screens being sold for a little less money, but still having probably big risks to it.
Im still amazed by my 1440p 144hz IPS screen for its beautiful colors, surprisingly high brightness but really dark hues. And I can watch movies/RUclips from an angle and still perfectly see everything.
There are pros and cons for every panel, so be really sure about what fits your needs.
From a productivity standpoint 4k is faaaar superior to 1080p. A large 4k or 3.5k ultrawide is much easier to work with running mutliple windows and doing stuff side by side. Also great for gaming if you have the GPU for it. 1080p is only for esports these days.
I do it the other way around, I bought a 31,5'' WQHD monitor and WQHD looks good.... but gaming in 4K using DL-DSR looks even better and with DLSS on top, you don't have such a huge performance hit. But my RTX 4070 died yesterday and now my consideration is to buy a RX 7800 XT. Unfortunately, AMD cards don't have Deep Learning, which means I would have to use tradiotional super samling in the form of Virtual Super Resolution to render the games in 4K. The question is whether the raw power of the 7800 XT can compensate for the lack of AI.
i went from 1080p to 1440p144hz and there is no way back, when i used a 4k60hz it what bad for the refresh but damm the image was crispy and clean, im saving for a 4k144hz monitor no regrets on that
Love my 4k oled monitor with the rtx 4080, getting the 138 fps my monitor is capable of! Can't go back to 1440
The thing is, upscaling is good enough now that I don't care and rather have a 4K screen and get the benefits in media consumption compared to a 1440p screen.
I'm running triple 1440p native screens right now, however, I'm running all screens with DSR DL 4K enabled within Windows across all screens. Honestly, it looks freaking great to me and all my games look fantastic on my 4070 Ti SUPER, especially triple screen gaming with the DSR enabled. My thinking is that if I encounter games that don't play well at higher resolutions and/or when this card has aged, I can just set the resolution back down to native 1440p and probably gain quite a bit of performance. To me, this just makes sense and tbh I cannot tell the difference between this and true 4K. Perhaps if I had them side-by-side, but the difference has to be subtle. I seriously feel like I'm set up for years to come with this card and monitor setup (not to mention the whole PC heh).
@danielowentech I was having a rough day, but you added a little cheer with - "I do want to win" repressed manial laughter while saying "any advantages that I can have."
I feel you man…well said👍
That was an abrupt ending.
its good that you enjoy your new 4K monitor but i prefer to wait for time then native 4k rendering would be normal on mid range gpu i already upgrading my pc basically anualy and still cant see reason to go 4k.
I think people and devs in general have realized that native 4k rendering is stupid, since upscalers can provide 98% of the quality at 50-60% of the cost. Like I can see the difference between native 4k and 1440p it's pretty obvious but when I use dlss (using dlss quality on 4k is equal to 1440p) the difference isn't as obvious as before.
So even if you want to run games at 1440p running them on native 1440p is stupid because you're missing out on the extra visual improvements that you would have if you upscaled them to 4k
@@khaledm.1476 So why buy something that's just 80% complete next year again with 90% and finally 98%. It's ok if you feel benefit from it. But at the moment 8k or 4k monitor is incomplete. Tech and games just coming close to fully utilize it. Only reason why you want upscaling technology to be implemented because you can't get powerful enough hardware. It's nice to get extra FPS then you struggle with hardware purchase. I find it dump that you need latest hardware to utilize it. That's main reason I don't even consider any it. And I like to play games on my laptop with 100fps without any upscale on 1080 screen.
Personally I find laptop gaming so comfortable for my lazy lifestyle that haven't turned on desktop for months.
@@khaledm.1476It's a decrease in quality for an increase in quantity and lag of frames. Why trade real quality gold for a fake Bronze gimmick ?
Daniel - can you maybe do a video on the differences between 1080 upscaled to 4K and 1440 upscaled to 4K? (with fsr/dlss)
Would love to see how much of a difference there is (or isnt) between both scenarios.
Not just because of the pixel mapping math favouring 1080 to 4K - but also the fact that 1080 is going to give a lot of us a whole lot more FPS with all other settings at max/ultra ..
sad that he didn't respond to this.
I got a Rx6700xt a few months ago then bought a 4k monitor. played Elden Ring and was blown away how it looks at 4k. The problem starts when I also record gameplay at 4k and play at the same time. Now I'm saving to get a 6800xt. 😂
A huge factor is screen size to viewing distance. If you sit too far to see the detail difference between 4k and 1080p then there is no reason to run a 4k resolution. For example if you sit 8ft away from a 42" 4k screen you likely couldn't tell the difference when in game. Now a 100" 4k at the same distance you can spot the sharpness increase on 4k. I sit about 10ft away from 65" and it's borderline, I am tempting to go up to 75" for my viewing distance.
"I'm not crazy, just ahead of the curve" ~ A Like Minded Genius
The joker's words.
As a car guy I can I came into this hobby guns of blazing because I'm already so numb to the financial horrors of wasting money on horsepower 😂😂😂
For the time being 4K delivery only makes sense for huge screens. For every day use It really only makes sense for scanners and cameras right now.
DLSS quality preset also have some quality loss?
Well said and well put
I have made the jump from 1440p to 1440p ultrawide to 4k to 1440p ultrawide oled. And I can safely say that yes, 1440p is the sweet spot, but also 4k has extremely noticeable advantages in games that actually have a lot of detail and long draw distances. Not to mention that it’s clear that DLSS and FSR2 are designed for 4k output.
My takeaway is that I’d absolutely take 1440p and better display technology over a 4k LCD, but there are still times I miss that pixel count. I’d say that if you’re buying a high end GPU you’d be a fool not to buy a 4k (or other high end) monitor. Anything 70 series and below? Yeah 1440p is where you want to be.
turning on dlss or fsr prety much destroys that nice draw distance and clarity baiscly makes it look like 1440p right away just tested it in 55 inch difference can be seen from space
@@CODE_PRODUCTIONTotally depends on the game and how good the motion information is on the fine detail objects. A lot of games lack good motion information on foliage, making DLSS/FSR2 quite ugly on those elements. The Witcher 3? Yeah you're taking a big clarity hit with DLSS/FSR2 on. Something far more geometric and with low sources of shader/transparency aliasing is gonna look virtually identical, however (it almost doesn't matter what DLSS mode you use in Portal RTX for instance).
i dont use dlss or fsr as that is not native 4k and there is huge clarity difference , dlss makes 4k res look like 1440p on 4k screen @@kickfister
the reason why 4k is not so much used right now is that everybody is waiting for displayport 2.0 as a standart.not everybody is changing monitors every year. my old 1080p aoc 144hz has like 6 yaers now. you can buy a great 4k monitor like gigabyte m28u but you are limited to 120hz.
I’ve also got a 1080p 144hz aoc monitor it’s the 24g2u. It’s great and I have no plans of getting into 1440p or 4K I’ve used both but they don’t seem worth it to me on monitors
I am using a LG 4k 27" 60Hz monitor and I have to say for desktop use it is fantastic, the relative small panel combined with that many pixels creates a stunning image. When gaming I render at 1440p resolution and upscale to 4k using AMD's RSR or FSR technique. It looks great as the pixel density covers up a bit of the unsharp edges almost acting as a antialiasing effect. I came from a 160Hz 1080p 23" monitor, the refresh rate was noticeable at first, but it doesn't really bother me capping things off at 60 fps.
You can play 1660p (3k) idk if that on a 4k Is blurry , i mean 3k + fsr (magpie/lossless scaling/native)
I'm wondering if I should get a 1440p 144hz or 4k60 monitor or more I'd like one with decent hdr I'm mainly playing single player games I'd like that clarity
1440p 144hz if you have a lower budget. the cheapest 144hz 4k monitor that you can buy in the market right now is the XB273K GP I think which uses a slower IPS panel than newer 4k 144hz monitors. 4k 60hz monitors are alright for console, but the input lag may be high
Personally I find having high refresh rate as an option a big deal so I wouldn't go 4K 60 myself but for single player it is at least worth considering if the picture quality beats the 1440p display.
I have a pc 6700xt and ryzen 5 5600x I'd be playing single player games like whitcher 3 and skrim and more I'd got the idea of a 1440p 144hz monitor it's a sceptre e275b with hdr and 4k monitor not sure on which to go with was looking into asus but the hdr isn't good I do know you have to put more money into it for hdr my budget is under 400 something good overall with hdr
LG is releasing a 4k 120hz 42" OLED next year. i might have to buy it
I'm playing at 4k with a 7900 xtx and OLED screen...can't go back to 1440. Huge jump in color definition and clarity.