Shift to 4K Gaming

  • 59 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#51 Posted by Grey_Eyed_Elf (3904 posts) -

I went from:

  1. 1280x1024 in 2003
  2. 1920x1080 in 2008
  3. 2560x1080 in 2013

I will probably end up with a 3840x2160 by 2016.

My TV's

  1. SD before 2005
  2. 1366x768 in 2005
  3. 1920x1080 in 2012

Can't see my self buying a TV with a higher resolution in the near future mainly because I only have 13 HD channels that output at 1280x720 then upscaled to 1920x1080 on my TV.

It's not a gimmick resolution is a natural progression with PC monitors that progression is quicker because the content is there where as with TV's it just isn't and with the now current generation still running games with a resolution lower than 1920x1080 and that the majority of channels are SD I don't see 4K being "standard" till another 10 years or even 15.

The trouble with monitors is that the market is overflowing with options:

  1. 1920x1080 monitors
  2. 1920x080 monitors with 120/144Hz refresh rates
  3. 2560x1440 monitors
  4. 16:10 monitors
  5. 21:9 monitors
  6. 4K
  7. G-SYNC

Personally after using a 21:9 monitors I can wholeheartedly say that aspect ration is more important to me than refresh rate or resolution.

I would much rather have a future where we had 39" 21:9 monitors with a resolution of 3840x1620.

4K is great but I refuse to go back to 16:9.

#52 Posted by caseypayne69 (5390 posts) -

Not touching 4k till PS5 \ X2

#53 Posted by Heil68 (45267 posts) -

Nope, not any time soon. it's a waste right now and the TV's are priced stupidly.

4K TVs won't make 1080p TVs obsolete anytime soon

#54 Edited by GioVela2010 (4018 posts) -

Average tv/seating distance is 9ft.

To notice a minor difference between 1080p and 4K u need at least a 80" TV at that viewing distance.

To be able to notice all the difference at 9 ft viewing distance u would need a 140" screen.

#55 Posted by Riverwolf007 (23865 posts) -

lol, sw thinks resolution makes games better.

why anyone would prioritize a huge system hog like resolution over frames per second, draw distance, lighting effects, water effects, onscreen enemies or particle effects is beyond me.

when i dial in my pc games my priority is to max everything else and only then worry about resolution.

after i hit a minimum of 720 or so i am going to put the rest of my system resources where i think they do the most good.

#56 Posted by glez13 (8876 posts) -

@Riverwolf007 said:

lol, sw thinks resolution makes games better.

why anyone would prioritize a huge system hog like resolution over frames per second, draw distance, lighting effects, water effects, onscreen enemies or particle effects is beyond me.

when i dial in my pc games my priority is to max everything else and only then worry about resolution.

after i hit a minimum of 720 or so i am going to put the rest of my system resources where i think they do the most good.

That was probably true in the CRT days. LCD butchers the quality of anything not native.

#57 Posted by shellcase86 (1934 posts) -

@stuff238 said:

Not anytime soon. Too expensive and there is barely any content available anyway.

Ditto. There's practically no content. Practically no games will take advantage of this soon enough. 4k is impressive, but not impressive enough for me to spend money on it. And it's not somehting I would notice much in my personal life.

#58 Posted by masiisam (5721 posts) -

4K Monitor? All day long…

4K TV…what a joke…Sorry..i'm not going to sit 5 feet away from a +60 inch screen to see the difference…..MAYBE when content is released in xvYcc which will give more dynamic range in colors where 4K tv's can give higher contrast ratios is when I will look at them.

#59 Posted by AM-Gamer (4048 posts) -

@GioVela2010: lol plasma sucks hence the reason nobody buys them. OLEDs look amazing but are far from reliable

#60 Posted by GioVela2010 (4018 posts) -

@AM-Gamer:

Plasma is universally accepted as miles better than LED by videophiles and professional reviewers