What Resolution Do You Game at?

Diji on 13/10/2020 - 12:09

As I consider my next big upgrade since my PC is heaps old at this point, I'm wondering about getting a new monitor too. It's possibly the oldest part of my setup, but the PC monitor space seemingly hasn't advanced a whole lot. The biggest things IMO are high refresh rate, adaptive sync, and 4K. HDR, too, but I'm not really sure how good it is on PC monitors as compared to in the TV space.

Coming from a 2560x1440, 27" IPS monitor the main choices for me would be stick with the current res and get some of the newer features like a higher refresh, adaptive sync, and HDR; or go with 4K.

The only real "killer" feature there for me is adaptive sync, but I'm not sure it's worth forking out another few hundred dollars for. 4K sounds cool but when I consider RTX 3080 benchmarks showing how hard it is to run games it's less enticing; it means more expensive components each time I upgrade and even mid-range cards feel super expensive now.

Anyway, what I'm really curious about is how many of you are gaming on 4K, do you think it's worth it? Did many of you decide to stick with 1440p or even 1080p? Or perhaps go ultrawide?

Poll Options

  • 35
    1080p
  • 61
    1440p
  • 13
    4K
  • 11
    Ultrawide
  • 3
    VGA
Computing

Comments

  • SnowDragon on 13/10/2020 - 12:20
    +2

    Went from 1080p to Ultrawide (1080 x 2560) to 1440p.

    I prefer frames and refresh rate over resolution. 1080p @ 144 > 1440p @ 60.
    But 1440p @ 165 has been great. If only my GPU agreed with me.

    • Bazman5220 on 13/10/2020 - 12:58

      I'm still a 60Hz pleb, but I would have thought that higher refresh rate is really the "killer" feature to fork out for. I guess how much you value buttery smooth fps will depend on what games you're playing.

      • SnowDragon on 13/10/2020 - 13:11

        It's definitely a noticeable improvement. I was watching LTT do a video with a few pro gamers like shroud and testing aiming and reaction speed with 60,144 and 244. They all performed a lot better with 144.

        I feel like I'm playing a lot better as well. Well worth investing in.

      • Diji on 13/10/2020 - 18:28

        I've briefly overclocked my monitor since I have one of those Yamakasi Catleaps from ages ago which, depending on your luck, could go up to 120Hz (although mine gets weird over 60 so I never kept it like that) and it's definitely very nice; it's just not a killer feature for me because I know given how long I keep my computer parts in between upgrades it'll cease to matter before long. For example, I recently played Death Stranding at something like 40 FPS average, lol.

        • Bazman5220 on 13/10/2020 - 22:09

          Thats a very good point and really is the main reason I haven't made the jump. I don't think the rest of my computer could do a high refresh rate justice most of the time!

  • AustriaBargain on 13/10/2020 - 12:24

    I play with a 4K overlay (hud, player icons, etc) and gaming tends to be about 70% 4k for low end games and more like 50% 4k for demanding games. But the 4k overlay is worth it, even if the base game is 720p the crispy 4K overlays always look great.

  • Ryanek on 13/10/2020 - 12:41
    +3

    Option 2 and 4 - 3440 x 1440

  • fratakk on 13/10/2020 - 12:52

    I switched to super mega ultra wide and never looking back

    • GrueHunter on 13/10/2020 - 13:08
      +4

      Friend, let me introduce you to the wonders of hyper super mega ultra wide

      • kyoba on 13/10/2020 - 16:07
        +1

        once you go VR…

  • Ippy1 on 13/10/2020 - 13:03

    I've been gaming on a 1440p TN panel with G-sync for the last 6 years. With a GTX 1080, pretty much no issues running most games at 120Hz/120fps. I'm switching to an ultrawide 1440p now with a GTX 3080 (which just arrived! Hurrah!) as I feel it's still a better compromise than a 4K monitor, as I value good framerates over a 4K image.

  • cille745 on 13/10/2020 - 13:04

    As someone who's literally had a screen that's every resolution here
    1080P - Too low resolution in this day and age unless you have a mid range computer and you're targeting 240HZ for Esports titles. Also looks shocking on anything above a 24'.
    1440P - The best mix of performance and visuals you can get, and high refresh will now be achievable this gen on mid range hardware.
    4K - Not worth the performance tax unless you only play with a controller or have an RTX 3090. The main problem is that proper HDR only comes on these displays, and good HDR is, to me at least, just as big as the 60->144 jump.
    Ultrawide - Fantastic if you have high end hardware, if you don't 16:9 1440P is the better option

    • Diji on 13/10/2020 - 18:19

      4K - Not worth the performance tax unless you only play with a controller or have an RTX 3090. The main problem is that proper HDR only comes on these displays, and good HDR is, to me at least, just as big as the 60->144 jump.

      Is the HDR offered on 1440P monitors kinda "faking it"?

      • cille745 on 13/10/2020 - 18:30

        While you get some benefits from the wide colour gamut, anything less than a full FALD display or OLED is faking it

        • Diji on 13/10/2020 - 18:42

          Display tech feels super stagnant in anything smaller than 50" or so these days. Sitting like 1m away from one of those sounds like a bad time, though.

  • conan2000 on 13/10/2020 - 13:28

    I have a 4K 32" 60Hz monitor. Current set-up can't handle gaming at that resolution though. Part of the question though is what else you use your monitor for and what else is important to you?

    E.g. I play games, but not enough to care about the high FPS. I use mine a lot more for WFH, and switching between different computers. So I got one with USB-C input for ease of cable management with laptops. and a built in KVM so it's easy to switch to desktop. I also wanted 4K and HDR for movies/TV shows.

    • Diji on 13/10/2020 - 18:23

      Fair enough, 4K is probably good for multitasking, hey? Depending on the state of Windows scaling, I suppose. The scaling on Macs has always seemed better. I never watch movies or TV at my desk so gaming is the priority for me and I don't do anything image quality sensitive to need 4K detail or HDR.

      • conan2000 on 13/10/2020 - 20:11

        Yeah, I haven't experienced a lower resolution at this screen size so can't compare. But the image quality is fantastic, and I like how clean my desk is with the inbuilt KVM. The scaling is fine on Windows 10. HDR will be good for games as well.

  • [Deactivated] on 13/10/2020 - 13:33

    Real life resolution.

    • Diji on 13/10/2020 - 18:20

      How do I delete someone else's comment?

      • [Deactivated] on 13/10/2020 - 18:21
        +1

        Highlight the comment and press Alt + f4

        • Diji on 13/10/2020 - 18:23

          didn't work, help :(

  • Bid Sniper on 13/10/2020 - 14:13

    1080p@120hz on a 65" TV

  • Mechz on 13/10/2020 - 14:18

    3840x1600 ultrawide.

  • Baa on 13/10/2020 - 14:52

    1440p @ 165hz for me, I am probably one of the few who moved from a ultrawide back to a 27".

  • abctoz on 13/10/2020 - 18:48

    i'm waiting for 4k + oled + 120hz to become cheaper since oled has the awesome pixel response time:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJXFe5zW_G0

    they can definitely push the frames too look at the kind of shit ai can do, input lag aside you can render a game @ 20fps and make it look good

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFN9dzw0qH8

    imo wait a few years and see

  • iridiumstem on 13/10/2020 - 19:30

    I reckon I will stay on FHD for little bit longer. Maybe in a few year when I feel that the entire computer is bit too old and I feel like it's time for me to just replace the entire thing, maybe I will change the PC for 2K or 4K.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join