Is 4k really required for PC gamers now or should they stick to 1440/60fps?

Even though XsX and PS5 are targeting 4k because they have 4k tvs not 1440p ones, do PC gamers really need to do the same right now? Is there really a BIG difference between 1440p and 4k? I would think if there isn't a big difference then most people could save a lot more money, get at least 60fps on every game, and much better graphical detail than the consoles depending on the game.

I would rather have consistent 60fps minimum and high/ultra level graphical detail over a little more pixels when 1440p already looks pretty damn good. Now that these new Nvidia and AMD cards are coming, PC hardware prices will be dropping so PC's would be even cheaper compared to console if 1440p/60fps is good enough for most people. I could probably build a 1440p PC for $750-800 that plays the same games as a $599 console. Does PC have to compete in the "4K" space now or is it just a buzzword right now?

No you don't need 4K when you're sitting a few inches in front of your monitor dripping cheeto juice from your pores.

@NathanDrakeSwag: mmmmm cheetos :)

@Fairmonkey: I'm partial to Munchos myself.

For me, yes. I have a 4K TV. Still, I happily drop down to 1440 for the 60+fps.

What really matters is that the games run properly (at least 60fps). Higher resolutions are useless if the performance is shit. I would rather play a game at 1080p/60fps than 4K/30fps.

The self proclaimed master race not gaming at 4k?

GTFO

1440peasant

HaH

55" curved 4k at 3'

doin pretty good I'd say.

I wouldn't have considered 4k gaming on the PC until just a few days ago. But now once the new cards have rolled out it will much more feasible without costing insane amounts of money.

4k at 60 fps and above is a huge improvement over my 1080p monitor - so I'm definitely going all in with the 3000 series.

Nothing required obviously, whatever's best for you. There is a discernible difference between the two for sure, but 1440p still looks great.

Personally, even after I get a 3090, still gonna go with 1440p displays. Would rather have max settings and top notch performance for years to come. Might occasionally kick a slower game over to the 4k tv.

The 4k difference is there though. I prefer 1440p for gaming, but use 4k monitors for work.

@bluestars: better than 30fps, no mod support, paying for online, and shooting with a controller lol

While 4K is nice and all, I still like to game in 1440p at best on my 27 monitor but I really value higher framerates (144hz) over raw resolution. But of course, all games should be aiming for 60fps, not 4K.

Every PC gamers has their needs.

Native 4k is a massive waste of resources. Something like 1440p is good enough for both PC or consoles, especially if it means better framerate.

I mean... are you though? 😂

I get it's all preference man, but that seems like an insane viewing distance for the display size. Would think 6' for that at least.

I still dont care about 4k personally.

Really up to you. I'm finally buying a 4K TV after all these years to get ready for PS5! As for monitors, I have a 1440p 60hz ultra wide. I think down the line I still really love ultra wide, so if I were to invest in a new one, that would be on the list for must haves. I've been spoiled by it lol.

@ConanTheStoner: yes. Might change it up after upgrade and put my 75" 8k against the wall, so be more like 5' then :D

@dxmcat:

Oh, that's not nearly as crazy as I imagined haha. Seems like having it mounted higher like that rather than front and center probably helps. Idk, never had a setup quite like that.

Crazy lol

If you have your PC hooked up to a 4K TV and want 4K ultra 60fps minimum you're going to need one of these new cards. Why have a 4K screen if you're not going to game at 4K and yes you can totally see the difference between that and 1440 unless you're I don't know, half blind or something?

Next gen consoles won't deliver anything like that kind of performance and detail at 4K. Ain't gonna happen, nope. So yeah, that's your question answered for you. Was there anything else?

The point of PC gaming (one of them) is you get to choose your resolution, framerate, and settings to your taste and needs. For example, 4K is pointless on smaller screens, and some people would simply prefer framerate and settings first. Others, who can pay to play, can get all 3. Myself, I can't justify never would chose resolution if it meant <60fps and/or scrub visuals. I just barely upgraded to 1440p myself and I'm happy as a clam

@blueinheaven: if you want to pay more, yea u can do that but the beauty of pc is it can be whatever you want it to be. You could also get a cheap 1440p monitor and do just fine or 1080p if u really want

Would love to have a vertical 4K IPS monitor to view high definition comics/porn pictures. I have to zoom in with my 1440x2560 monitor to view high res pictures without them looking all scratchy and shit. Stretching bigger pictures to a smaller resolution or maximizing smaller pics to a bigger res never looks as good as the native res, and who wants to constantly zoom in and pan? That's why a vertical 4K would be awesome.

4K is too demanding and pointless for games that you're sitting three feet away from. I have a 4K TV connected to my PC, but only use it for movies, porn and controller-superior games.

You asked if 4K was really required for PC gamers (nothing is 'required' you play at whatever res you want on any setup you want but never mind...) and the clear implication was that everyone games at 1440p anyway which as I just pointed out is absolutely not true.

I don't know why you're telling me you can get a cheap monitor or play at 1080p seriously WTF does that have to do with the discussion?

If PC gamers want to play at 4K specially on a big screen like a 4K TV (and yes, lots of us do that) they want ultra settings and the highest frame rate they can get. It's not about what you 'need' it's about what you 'want' and are prepared to pay for. Rocket science? No.

Nah its actually quite awesome for Elite Dangerous, better than current vr.

I stick to 1080p unless I link up my computer to the living room TV(65in/4K). I don't have enough room for monitors big enough to justify resolutions higher than that. It would be a waste on my part. As long as I get 1080 with steady frames, I'm good.

@Fairmonkey:

You must be talking about the ps pro

HaH

I'll probably be sticking with my 1440p/144hz monitor for a bit

No it depends on the gamer. My TV is 4K but supports 120fps at 1440p so I use 1440p mainly for multiplayer titles/modes and old/low end games where 4k won't really benefit the graphics much (Half Life 2 for example). A lot of PC gamers value high frame rate so I imagine even those with 4k capable GPUs will stick with 1440p and1080p to get 144+ fps in competitive games. I will be playing at 4k more when I get a RTX 3080/3070 since I want to enjoy singleplayer games like Cyberpunk 2077 and Metro Exodus at the best visual quality I can get.

High refresh rates >>> high resolution.

Also **** 30 FPS. It should have died in the 7th gen era, but noooo... Console gamers don't even have standards with these.

@jasonofa36: I recently tried out 4k 30hz in Warframe for shits n giggles and my god it was so unplayable. The screen looked nice and crispy but everything looked so choppy and slow. How the hell do console gamers play at that framerate? Is it never/rarely experiencing 60fps or even 40 fps that makes it so tolerable for them?

@NoodleFighter: TBF, COD games do run at 60 fps on the consoles, but are blurry as shit.

But games like Bloodborne, RDR 2, Horizon, UC4, maaaan, the input lag is fucking crazy. 30 FPS ruined the experience for me. Horizon at 30 vs 90 FPS is literally night and day.

It's not console gamers that don't have the standards it's marketing monkeys at Sony and MS who decided everything was all about 4K yeah we can sell that shit **** the frame rates.

@blueinheaven: it's just me taking the piss at console gamers, but yeah. Both do go hand-in-hand. If the consumers really wanted high framerates, they could force both MS and Sony's hand in making games at 60 FPS, but prettier pixels sell more I guess.

On here I think a lot of it is just being defensive over their favorite box. Something isn't worthwhile until they actually have it for themselves. If 60fps became the baseline standard on one console and not the other, the tune would change, you'd never hear the end of the gloating.

But I do think in general it's a matter of perspective, having not experienced how much better it can be. Can't exactly explain to someone just how great some games are at 120+ when they've rarely experienced a locked 60. Not just the responsiveness and smooth play in general, but how much better a game can actually look in motion. 30fps just rips visuals to shreds when you're actually playing lol.

Right now I'm still playing games at 1440p/60fps. Playing in 4K is when I build my next PC.

So basically, someone could put together a $750-800 pc and play at 1440p/60fps when the consoles are going to be $600. Yea, I'm calling it now thanks to the pringles and monster energy drink leaks, the PS5 and XsX will be $599. PC gaming isn't for everyone but if ur on the fence, I would switch to pc

I'm really interested to hear how consumers can force Sony or MS to focus more on performance than graphics. I mean it's never happened in the entire history of videogames.

So yeah, tell me how something like this works? What do we have to do to make them listen? Are you thinking placards in front of Sony HQ and maybe a peaceful protest at MS in Seattle is that what we're aiming for here?

Console gamers want 60fps but marketing monkeys want to tell them what they want not give them what they want nothing will change that. Nothing.

@blueinheaven: it's called voting with wallets.

@blueinheaven:

To be fair, it is a bit of a two way street. Yes, these companies do push and reinforce what people should like, but at the same time a lot of these devs are just giving gamers what they want. And for years now, pretty pictures have been better at selling games than things like gameplay or performance.

I know it's hard to believe, but there was a time when 60fps was the standard on consoles. Gens 3 and 4, graphics were still important as always, but nobody wanted a game that ran like shit. Performance was still top priority, and most devs made good on that.

It all changed when console gaming went 3d and has been a wave ever since. Gen 5 sucked. Gen 6 got a whole lot better. Gen 7 sucked. Current gen got a bit better. We'll see where it goes from here.

Lately it's been more genre specific. Good luck selling fighting games, platformers, "character" action, beat em ups, etc. to those fanbases at 30 frames lol. They're in it 100% for the gameplay.

Buuut it does seem more gamers are wising up to performance being important. And you see it in the hype bullet points that some of these companies are pushing for next gen. At the very least, more developers are saying they'll have options for performance vs. resolution.

These things move at a glacial pace, but I think it's moving in a better direction.

@blueinheaven: do they? who is polling the lcd about what they want? If they really wanted it, they would stop buying shit and only buy once they get their demands. $ is the only thing these companies understand.

since ps3 era where not gotten steady performance from games across the board . on top of that game dev lie about what rez and such since then. they stop follow a industry standard

I'm sticking with 1440p. On a standard desk setup I don't notice much difference stepping up to 4k. Not enough to justify the extra cost of the monitor and the performance hit. However, 1440p is noticeable over 1080p on screens 27 inches and greater. From what I've seen 1440p@144 is the sweet spot and its what I decided to go with over a year ago. The extra sharpness of the "2k" resolution running over 100fps is amazing and I couldn't go back. I will always choose higher frames over 4k.

Sticking with 1440p/144hz until there's a proper HDR ips monitor in 4k and no more expensive than $400. This will take a while.

Add another vote for 1440p/144fps. 60fps? That’s gross. 1440p to 4K in a 27” monitor is noticeable, but a waste of resources. 1440p is a good resolution for that size. Get as many FPS as you can at 1440p. Until GPUs can push 4K at 144-360 consistently anyway.

The reason I'm even considering of going 4K over 1440p for my next monitor is that I'd be able to use 2:1 scaling on a 27" to get a perfect sized UI/text, while 1440p native would be a bit too small, and scaled to 120/125 percent would look blurry.

Don't see a reason for 4K gaming on anything below 32".

Don't mix up hunchbacks w/ hermits, or I'll throw the sorry-ass 720p Nintendon't peasants in your bag...😏

No worries, with the 3080 in our rigs we won't even have to...🤩

I hate curved displays. They look skewed.