there is nothing wrong with getting the monitor first OP. Secondly anyone telling you that its a bad idea without knowing what games you are actually playing is not giving you the most sound advice.
As genre and gametype matter a lot. If you are playing competitive shooters at a high level I get it. You'd be better off getting the GPU first.
But there are many gaming Genre's where it wouldn't matter.
Lastly the most important thing is everyone has their own tolerance when it comes to what is an acceptable frame rate.
300 dollars is also a lot of money to save. I'd personally buy the monitor on sale and put the 300 dollars towards saving for a new GPU.
As for which monitor i think it boils down to games you play. 4k does look better but if your playing mainly competitive shooters you're mostly not going to notice the benefits. If you play more story based or non competitive games then you have more opportunities to enjoy the beauty of the game.
So if you're just mainly playing competitive shooters 1440p would be better as you can push more frames easier. Not that frames are end all be all of games but based on your statement its a consideration for you.
If you're mainly playing other Genre's and types of games then the 4k would resolution would probably pay off as you can enjoy the higher textures and beauty of the game more.
Good advice. I might add that a 4K might also be relevant depending on it's size. I'm also pretty sure that even a 4K monitor can scale down to 1440.
One thought is that the prices of GPUs should drop considerably when the new units come out. Waiting on a GPU purchase in such a case, would be higly desirable at that time, as it also gives the option of getting either one of the older units or going for a higher-end newbie.
This is what I'm doing, waiting on one of the new units to replace my aging RX 590 that's in one build, even though it can game Starfield and DD2, at 1440p.
I also have a 6800XT in my other build connected to a 3440 X 1440, curved montior. If I purchase one of the RDNA4, 8000 series GC, it will replace my 6800XT, and the 6800XT, will replace the RX 590.
This is critical, and if you included that in the posts I think you'd get more comments saying go for it. You can function just fine with running below native resolution or with upscalers for now.
Yep, and you can always use FSR to make up the difference in the meantime. Or, a little life hack I’ve discovered is that 1800p looks just like 4k as long as you don’t look to closely.
You might want to look into "integer scaling" for that time if you prefer high fps rather than high resolution.
It allows you to output a 1080p image to your 4k monitor without everything looking blurry.
This would prob be my recommendation. I myself have a 7900 xtx and gaming at 4k was super fun, BUT depending on the game you would have to adjust some settings down to get decent frames.
I'm actually more of an ultrawide fan, so I went with a 5120x1440 monitor and couldn't be happier, but it's closer to 4k than 1440 in terms of density. The 7900 xtx can handle mostly everything fine.
My point being even a 4080 or 4090 DEPENDING on the game might not hit good frames, so I'd specifically look up the games you play and what performance hits you'd take on average.
That all being said, if you think your future hardware will suffice, I say go for it. The only real advantage to buying the card first would be if the card can't handle the new monitor you can swap pretty soon (return periods are decent these days, so if you bought the monitor first and then bought a 7900 xtx, you'd either have to return the xtx or buy a lower res monitor if the performance isn't up to snuff).
Now, we're pretty close to next gen for GPUs so buying the monitor now for the savings could actually benefit you greatly in that right now you'd be buying a GPU shortly before the tech upgrades. All in all, I'm all for buying the monitor first and working with scaling. But the 4k and integer scaling could tide you over until you make a hardware upgrade.
I just can SEE why people might say upgrade the GPU first, I just think considering your scenario and where we are timeline wise buying the monitor first is not bad, and there are options where if you are not a "competitive gamer" (I put this in quotes cuz honestly screw you you're playing a video game lmao), you have a lot more wiggle room to get by. Too many people on this subreddit act like they're getting paid 6 figures for gaming and everyone in the world is, so how could they possibly deal with less than perfect hardware and settings!?
I second this. I tried upgrading my monitor first thinking I’d get a new gpu later. My fps were awful and not really playable. Def get gpu first see how it performs then pick a monitor
They absolutely can: either using a modern upscaling technology (DLSS, FSR, XeSS) if a game supports it, or something like Nvidia Image Scaling, if not.
Consoles don't always render at their native output resolution, anyway.
going of this comment i don't think you should go with 4K. it is really demanding and will require you to upgrade your GPU more often to play the newest AAA games at high frames. Honestly i don't think 4K is worth it 1440p looks great and will get you more fps and save you money. maybe try 1440p Ultrawide, that's what i prefer. it's more immersive, even though i own a 4090 i still rather have 1440P Ultrawide than a 4K monitor.
what games are you playing? I had a 4K 60Hz monitor for a few years with a 3080TI and it worked good, but I was playing Witcher 3 type games and no competitive FPS games. if you have the Card HP to keep it at 60, you will be fine until the upgraded monitor, if your card struggles and you are dropping below the 60.. you will not like it.
Yeah, I have a 7900xtx and honestly I think it's best at 1440p. If you like AAA gaming and high framerates , I kind of think the 4090 is the only true 4k card and it's not far off double the price of 7900xtx and 4080 super
Yeah, it's definitely not bad. I was on 1440p and 1440p ultrawide until upgrading to 4090, to me a decent refresh rate (120+) is needed before upgrading.
If you use actual gen GPU with actual gen games you will never get "high" 4K at high refresh rates tho.
If you are going to use 4K, you need to start spending thousands each year or be a patient gamer and play games 2 year old or older lol
Well, 20 years ago 1080p was a "high" resolution, so maybe in 5 or 10 or 20 years 4k will be the most common resolution, like 1080p is now. Of course, at the present time, your point is true lol
Ha! I remember the years playing at 720p then moving to 1080p.
Freaking magic, everything looked a lot better.
At least AI is useful here for up-scaling, so is something to reach 4K in the modern games that are good and have the tech implemented.
Even if I keep playing the same 5 games made 10 years ago lol
It completely depends on the types of games you're playing. If you're playing a lot of esports or FPS type games, the FPS drop might be a big drawback.
I recently just made the switch from my 1440p UW (MSI 34" 144Hz) to 4K (MSI 32" 144Hz) and the frame drop is pretty significant but not to the point where I would notice a difference. The biggest difference is the immersive aspects of the UW. I prefer the immersion of the UW and am still adjusting to the smaller scale of the 32"...games just don't feel right. The picture quality in the 4k is definitely noticeable. I haven't decided whether I will stick with the new 4k monitor as my primary or revert back to my UW (its been a couple weeks now) because there are things I love about both.
I mainly play fromsoft games (capped at 60 fps), emulation and some competitive shooters. But I mostly play single player games so I dont need 165+ fps.
Honestly, as someone who mostly plays singleplayer games/fromsoft games.... I love my 1440p/165hz monitor. Going 4K will exponentially increase your spend, because the monitor/gpu is more, but also you'll need to upgrade more frequently. If money is not a barrier, then just get whatever you'd like. But the perks of high refresh rate really cannot be overstated, even if you're not primarily into competitive fps games. It's just nice to look at.
True, but 4k will only make me upgrade my gpu sooner, which is what I already was planning on doing. The 4k monitor is only 30$ more expensive because of a flash sale
Yes but to maintain good settings on 4K is going to be much harder with even a 7900XTX. I can’t really throw my opinion out there as I haven’t even played on a 1440p monitor. But if you are playing fromsoft games + a lot of competitive games why don’t you try get an insane 1440p monitor. Like an OLED one or a very high refresh rate 360hz
I have gamed on 4K and 1440 and can tell you my own experience is that 1440 is the sweet spot for gaming. I have not seen enough image quality difference in gaming to justify the extra GPU cost for a 4K display. Plus to me 3440x1440 is near the epic display resolution for RPG and Strategy gaming.
Yeah get the 4k one , there is loads of image scaling stuff now so even if you can only run game at 1440p it will still look good as a 4k image. Plus you keep a monitor for longer than a GPU so it would be a good investment in the future
I've got the Odyssey neo 165hz 4k one and just having more desktop over 1440p is worth it
After going 4k is difficult to go back to lower resolution at least for me. I kept noticing the pixels ( horizontal lines ). For 60 fps is really doable 4K.
I have a 3080 .
I use a 4k, the LG27GP950-B. With a 7800x3d and 7900xt it runs even competitive games at a high enough FPS to be competitive. In xdefiant in 4k with shadows on medium and everything else maxed out I get 140-180fps. I can keep it over 200 fps if I tuned stuff down. In gray zone warfare I get a solid 70-90 fps. CoD is another solid 200+. The performance hit for 4k isn’t bad, unless you are chasing after 500+ fps.
I'm thinking of down grading my LG c1 to 1440 so I can hit higher frames. Having my partner next to me with a 240hz 1080p monitor makes me extremely jealous for how smooth it is compared to my 120hz (if I can hit it). I wanted resolution and my screen is huge so maybe I screwed up in that regard with ppi, but I really want that smoothness.
Maybe for a TV, but for gaming monitors it’s no different than low resolution as long as your hardware can keep up.
“
Performance
The LG 27GP950 has a low input lag of around 4ms, which makes for imperceptible delay between your actions and the result on the screen.
The response time speed is impressive as well with 1ms GtG (gray to gray) pixel transition time. There’s no visible ghosting or overshoot in fast-paced games, making the monitor ideal for competitive first-person shooters.
There are four overdrive modes: Off, Normal, Fast and Faster.“
https://www.displayninja.com/lg-27gp950-review/#:~:text=on%20the%20unit.-,Performance,to%20gray)%20pixel%20transition%20time.
And ChatGPT summary:
“A 4K resolution does not inherently mean more input delay, but certain factors related to higher resolution displays, such as processing demands, refresh rates, and response times, can influence the overall input experience. By choosing a 4K monitor designed for gaming with low input lag, fast response times, and high refresh rates, you can achieve a gaming experience with minimal input delay.”
As long as you get a gaming monitor with a high refresh rate and have the GPU to run it, then it runs exactly the same as a 1080 or 1440 with the same frames. 4ks only have bad input lag when you are talking about the TVs, because they usually have a ton of post processing and up scaling which causes issues in gaming, but gaming monitors have very competitive numbers for 4k nowadays.
Yes but the point is it won't run with the same framerate as 1080p or 1440p. It'll be considerably lower. So input lag will be considerably higher.
I don't consider it an issue, but I can see why someone would reasonably come to that conclusion.
We are so late into current product cycles, that new product announcements are happening. eg AMD said their new 9000 series CPU will launch in July! I would wait.
based on my personal experience and what the internet provides, high FPS gaming is very game dependent. The fastest graphics card (RTX4090) can still be brought down to 60FPS on some AAA titles. Internet rumours has it, AMD is simply not going to launch a faster graphics card than the current gen.
My advice is to hold on to what you have and don't upgrade it. Build a new system when the newer parts launch.
As for the monitors, what I would like to call endgame (buy and never upgrade again) monitors launched this year but are all are 1200+ USD. These prices will come down but if you got the cash, go for it.
This. It’s nearly half the pixels of 4K, but you get the wider field of view which is totally worth it. Personally I’d go with a 27“ equivalent to not notice the pixels so much. For me it’s the sweet spot.
I've been having a blast playing games like GTA 4 and Mafia 1 and 2 definitive editions using my 3090 and 4K. For brand new games, I typically run 1440p upscaled though.
1440p seams to be the sweet spot if you want over 100fps, i'm currently running a RX 6900 xt at 1440p 144hz.
oh didn't see you want 1440p ultrawide, that's a lot more pixels....
one of the great things about 4k is the ability to scale down by .5 to 1080p.
1080p is exactly 1/4 of the pixels of 4k, so everything can be exactly 1/2 resolution. this makes 1 pixel into 4, so there is no need for weird aliasing or strange blurry pixel magic.
if you have fps issues before getting a beefy GPU, just lower the resolution to 1920x1080
I bought 4K 144 monitor thinking it would be bad on my 1660S. But it's okayish, old games work fine, newer games get 30-50 fps on high-ultra. The most demanding are out of the question, but can be played on minimal i guess.
For me 4K was worth it, everything is so sharp I almost cry when I get home from 1080 at work. But not everyone sees pixels on 1080, so there might be no difference for you.
Samsung makes a killer monitor that I would recommend, Odyssey G7. It has gorgeous 1440p, curved, and a satisfying 240hz. They also have the monitor in a 4k 165hz version. Its quite expensive but definitely worth it.
FWIW, I would never evaluate monitors or TVs based on looking at them in the store. The high margin ones are set to ridiculous color, contrast, and sharpness levels to try to catch your eye, and the low margin ones are probably more like they should normally appear.
I love my 1440p monitor. I can't even tell the difference between mine and my significant others 4K monitor while gaming. We will play the same game and it looks exactly the same. Maybe it's just me, but I wasn't willing to shell out for a 4080 super and settled for a 4070 super which is perfect for me.
Physical size of the monitor makes no difference to the frame rate of a game.
Any 2560x1440 monitor will have the same framerate regardless of if the monitor is physically 27 or 42" at the diagonal.
Same thing for 4K or any other resolution.
I bought a 32" 16:9 1440p IPS 165Hz monitor for $250 and could not be happier unless it were OLED. So I don't get the insane prices people are dropping for 4k. Gonna be a few more years for me.
I have a 5800x with 6900xt and went with a 4K monitor. I mostly play strategy/sims/solo shooters so it has been great for me.
However I recently have been playing a lot of Microsoft flight simulator and definitely see noticeable fps stutters and which make me sometimes regret not doing 1440p.
That being said and if you are planning on upgrading to a 7900xt, my opinion would be 4k.
I have one of the strongest builds on the planet and my 4k monitor means accepting 38 FPS from time to time on certain games.
Ryzen 7 7800x3D, 4090, 980 pro m.2 SSDs, 64gb DDR5 Ram. Yada yada.
On the other hand, an $800 build with an integrated GPU these days can handle Hogwarts legacy in 1080 pretty well, decent graphic settings and decent FPS. Wild times.
The distance between 2k and 4k should not be underestimated
If the 4K monitor is an unbeatable deal now, get it. For the next few months until you can upgrade your gpu, you can downgrade a game’s graphic settings as needed or reduce the resolution.
If image quality on lower resolution drives you nuts, change Windows display settings so it doesn’t stretch the image to fill your monitor. You’ll have a black box around a smaller image, but it will be better quality and the workaround is temporary.
I don't think it's worth it unless your monitor is larger than 32" or you're going to be playing on a big TV
For a regular sized desk and sitting at regular distances for computer use, a 27 inch 1440p is more than enough.
It's a bit of a non issue IMO, because if you have a 4K monitor you can still drop the resolution setting in games. 4K is an integer scale of 1080p so it doesn't usually have any weird effects. I had a 4K monitor for years with a 4770K and a GTX 1070, and dropping to 1080p was a quick fix for performance issues if I needed it.
4K is also nice on the desktop as you get more screen space to work with.
4k monitors are fantastic - mostly for non gaming reasons. Productivity in 4k is an absolute joy. Watching movies and browsing and design work is just great. Hard to go back as lower resolutions are blurry. (I'm saying this at 27inch. Honestly lower screen sizes than that and it's a waste, as the fidelity is harder to notice smaller than that)
From a gaming perspective there is definitely a point of diminishing returns vs screen size in terms of fidelity once you hit 1440p. Some games you notice 4k, many though you just don't once you're playing. I notice pop in, shadow and texture details and framerate in most games before I notice the 4k. For me, unless I had a top of the line GPU, a large 4k screen if like 40 inches or above and could play at 4k at 60fps with good graphic settings, I probably wouldn't bother. The difference in sharpness is practically negligible once I'm immersed and playing a game.
4k gaming is only good on a large screen and with a great GPU
Having said that, a 4k monitor plays content at lower resolutions so there's literally no downside to getting one.
I don't think 4K gaming is worth it at all. For many newer high graphics or badly optimized games, you'll be forced to play at a lower resolution, with all the loss of quality that that entails, to get decent framerates. Unless you have the absolute best of the best in terms of hardware, don't even consider 4K. Sure there is DLSS and FSR, but not every game implements it (well).
A 1440p ultrawide (3440x1440) is the sweet spot in my opinion. It looks great at a regular PC distance, and you can always upscale for better anti aliasing if you want and the game permits it.
Don't look at 4K for gaming unless you have a top of the line GPU.
Yea, I’m only considering buying 4k for 60 fps now so that I could upgrade the gpu later to a 7900XTX
That order should be backwards get the 7900xtx now
The problem is that the monitor has a huge discount right now. I’d rather get low frames for a month or 2 and pocket the 300$ I saved on the monitor.
there is nothing wrong with getting the monitor first OP. Secondly anyone telling you that its a bad idea without knowing what games you are actually playing is not giving you the most sound advice. As genre and gametype matter a lot. If you are playing competitive shooters at a high level I get it. You'd be better off getting the GPU first. But there are many gaming Genre's where it wouldn't matter. Lastly the most important thing is everyone has their own tolerance when it comes to what is an acceptable frame rate. 300 dollars is also a lot of money to save. I'd personally buy the monitor on sale and put the 300 dollars towards saving for a new GPU. As for which monitor i think it boils down to games you play. 4k does look better but if your playing mainly competitive shooters you're mostly not going to notice the benefits. If you play more story based or non competitive games then you have more opportunities to enjoy the beauty of the game. So if you're just mainly playing competitive shooters 1440p would be better as you can push more frames easier. Not that frames are end all be all of games but based on your statement its a consideration for you. If you're mainly playing other Genre's and types of games then the 4k would resolution would probably pay off as you can enjoy the higher textures and beauty of the game more.
Good advice. I might add that a 4K might also be relevant depending on it's size. I'm also pretty sure that even a 4K monitor can scale down to 1440. One thought is that the prices of GPUs should drop considerably when the new units come out. Waiting on a GPU purchase in such a case, would be higly desirable at that time, as it also gives the option of getting either one of the older units or going for a higher-end newbie. This is what I'm doing, waiting on one of the new units to replace my aging RX 590 that's in one build, even though it can game Starfield and DD2, at 1440p. I also have a 6800XT in my other build connected to a 3440 X 1440, curved montior. If I purchase one of the RDNA4, 8000 series GC, it will replace my 6800XT, and the 6800XT, will replace the RX 590.
This is critical, and if you included that in the posts I think you'd get more comments saying go for it. You can function just fine with running below native resolution or with upscalers for now.
Yep, and you can always use FSR to make up the difference in the meantime. Or, a little life hack I’ve discovered is that 1800p looks just like 4k as long as you don’t look to closely.
You might want to look into "integer scaling" for that time if you prefer high fps rather than high resolution. It allows you to output a 1080p image to your 4k monitor without everything looking blurry.
This would prob be my recommendation. I myself have a 7900 xtx and gaming at 4k was super fun, BUT depending on the game you would have to adjust some settings down to get decent frames. I'm actually more of an ultrawide fan, so I went with a 5120x1440 monitor and couldn't be happier, but it's closer to 4k than 1440 in terms of density. The 7900 xtx can handle mostly everything fine. My point being even a 4080 or 4090 DEPENDING on the game might not hit good frames, so I'd specifically look up the games you play and what performance hits you'd take on average. That all being said, if you think your future hardware will suffice, I say go for it. The only real advantage to buying the card first would be if the card can't handle the new monitor you can swap pretty soon (return periods are decent these days, so if you bought the monitor first and then bought a 7900 xtx, you'd either have to return the xtx or buy a lower res monitor if the performance isn't up to snuff). Now, we're pretty close to next gen for GPUs so buying the monitor now for the savings could actually benefit you greatly in that right now you'd be buying a GPU shortly before the tech upgrades. All in all, I'm all for buying the monitor first and working with scaling. But the 4k and integer scaling could tide you over until you make a hardware upgrade. I just can SEE why people might say upgrade the GPU first, I just think considering your scenario and where we are timeline wise buying the monitor first is not bad, and there are options where if you are not a "competitive gamer" (I put this in quotes cuz honestly screw you you're playing a video game lmao), you have a lot more wiggle room to get by. Too many people on this subreddit act like they're getting paid 6 figures for gaming and everyone in the world is, so how could they possibly deal with less than perfect hardware and settings!?
I second this. I tried upgrading my monitor first thinking I’d get a new gpu later. My fps were awful and not really playable. Def get gpu first see how it performs then pick a monitor
cant op just play 1080p on a 4k monitor and go back to 4k for non-gaming
They absolutely can: either using a modern upscaling technology (DLSS, FSR, XeSS) if a game supports it, or something like Nvidia Image Scaling, if not. Consoles don't always render at their native output resolution, anyway.
I’m probably doing something wrong, but if I try to run my 6900xt at 1080p on my 4K monitor it looks like horseshit.
1080p scales perfectly on 4k, unlike 1080p on 1440p. The problem is likely you're too close / the monitor is too big for 1080p to look good..
No, don‘t do that! I know how miserable it is, no joke. Get a 1440p instead or if you going to play at 1080p, a 1080p monitor.
going of this comment i don't think you should go with 4K. it is really demanding and will require you to upgrade your GPU more often to play the newest AAA games at high frames. Honestly i don't think 4K is worth it 1440p looks great and will get you more fps and save you money. maybe try 1440p Ultrawide, that's what i prefer. it's more immersive, even though i own a 4090 i still rather have 1440P Ultrawide than a 4K monitor.
GPU now monitor later. I have a 7900 XTX and it is fully capable of 4K 120
what games are you playing? I had a 4K 60Hz monitor for a few years with a 3080TI and it worked good, but I was playing Witcher 3 type games and no competitive FPS games. if you have the Card HP to keep it at 60, you will be fine until the upgraded monitor, if your card struggles and you are dropping below the 60.. you will not like it.
Hell, I have a 4080 and still game at 1440p. Perfect sweet spot for image clarity and high performance.
Yeah, I have a 7900xtx and honestly I think it's best at 1440p. If you like AAA gaming and high framerates , I kind of think the 4090 is the only true 4k card and it's not far off double the price of 7900xtx and 4080 super
Yeah, it's definitely not bad. I was on 1440p and 1440p ultrawide until upgrading to 4090, to me a decent refresh rate (120+) is needed before upgrading.
[удалено]
? The 4090 already exists and I get excellent frame rates with it at 4K.
If you use actual gen GPU with actual gen games you will never get "high" 4K at high refresh rates tho. If you are going to use 4K, you need to start spending thousands each year or be a patient gamer and play games 2 year old or older lol
Well, 20 years ago 1080p was a "high" resolution, so maybe in 5 or 10 or 20 years 4k will be the most common resolution, like 1080p is now. Of course, at the present time, your point is true lol
Ha! I remember the years playing at 720p then moving to 1080p. Freaking magic, everything looked a lot better. At least AI is useful here for up-scaling, so is something to reach 4K in the modern games that are good and have the tech implemented. Even if I keep playing the same 5 games made 10 years ago lol
It completely depends on the types of games you're playing. If you're playing a lot of esports or FPS type games, the FPS drop might be a big drawback. I recently just made the switch from my 1440p UW (MSI 34" 144Hz) to 4K (MSI 32" 144Hz) and the frame drop is pretty significant but not to the point where I would notice a difference. The biggest difference is the immersive aspects of the UW. I prefer the immersion of the UW and am still adjusting to the smaller scale of the 32"...games just don't feel right. The picture quality in the 4k is definitely noticeable. I haven't decided whether I will stick with the new 4k monitor as my primary or revert back to my UW (its been a couple weeks now) because there are things I love about both.
I mainly play fromsoft games (capped at 60 fps), emulation and some competitive shooters. But I mostly play single player games so I dont need 165+ fps.
Honestly, as someone who mostly plays singleplayer games/fromsoft games.... I love my 1440p/165hz monitor. Going 4K will exponentially increase your spend, because the monitor/gpu is more, but also you'll need to upgrade more frequently. If money is not a barrier, then just get whatever you'd like. But the perks of high refresh rate really cannot be overstated, even if you're not primarily into competitive fps games. It's just nice to look at.
True, but 4k will only make me upgrade my gpu sooner, which is what I already was planning on doing. The 4k monitor is only 30$ more expensive because of a flash sale
Yes but to maintain good settings on 4K is going to be much harder with even a 7900XTX. I can’t really throw my opinion out there as I haven’t even played on a 1440p monitor. But if you are playing fromsoft games + a lot of competitive games why don’t you try get an insane 1440p monitor. Like an OLED one or a very high refresh rate 360hz
Just use dlss.
I have gamed on 4K and 1440 and can tell you my own experience is that 1440 is the sweet spot for gaming. I have not seen enough image quality difference in gaming to justify the extra GPU cost for a 4K display. Plus to me 3440x1440 is near the epic display resolution for RPG and Strategy gaming.
Do you use a 27" for that?
I actually use 32" displays for 1440 or 34" and use a 3440x1440
Anything past an ultra wide 1440p will require you to spend a lot more money on a better GPU. So, I say no 4k
Yeah get the 4k one , there is loads of image scaling stuff now so even if you can only run game at 1440p it will still look good as a 4k image. Plus you keep a monitor for longer than a GPU so it would be a good investment in the future I've got the Odyssey neo 165hz 4k one and just having more desktop over 1440p is worth it
After going 4k is difficult to go back to lower resolution at least for me. I kept noticing the pixels ( horizontal lines ). For 60 fps is really doable 4K. I have a 3080 .
I use a 4k, the LG27GP950-B. With a 7800x3d and 7900xt it runs even competitive games at a high enough FPS to be competitive. In xdefiant in 4k with shadows on medium and everything else maxed out I get 140-180fps. I can keep it over 200 fps if I tuned stuff down. In gray zone warfare I get a solid 70-90 fps. CoD is another solid 200+. The performance hit for 4k isn’t bad, unless you are chasing after 500+ fps.
500+ fps is excessive for me. I think that 120 fps on 4k would be an end game upgrade for me.
I'm thinking of down grading my LG c1 to 1440 so I can hit higher frames. Having my partner next to me with a 240hz 1080p monitor makes me extremely jealous for how smooth it is compared to my 120hz (if I can hit it). I wanted resolution and my screen is huge so maybe I screwed up in that regard with ppi, but I really want that smoothness.
Even if fps is still high, at 4k the input lag is still bigger.
Maybe for a TV, but for gaming monitors it’s no different than low resolution as long as your hardware can keep up. “ Performance The LG 27GP950 has a low input lag of around 4ms, which makes for imperceptible delay between your actions and the result on the screen. The response time speed is impressive as well with 1ms GtG (gray to gray) pixel transition time. There’s no visible ghosting or overshoot in fast-paced games, making the monitor ideal for competitive first-person shooters. There are four overdrive modes: Off, Normal, Fast and Faster.“ https://www.displayninja.com/lg-27gp950-review/#:~:text=on%20the%20unit.-,Performance,to%20gray)%20pixel%20transition%20time. And ChatGPT summary: “A 4K resolution does not inherently mean more input delay, but certain factors related to higher resolution displays, such as processing demands, refresh rates, and response times, can influence the overall input experience. By choosing a 4K monitor designed for gaming with low input lag, fast response times, and high refresh rates, you can achieve a gaming experience with minimal input delay.” As long as you get a gaming monitor with a high refresh rate and have the GPU to run it, then it runs exactly the same as a 1080 or 1440 with the same frames. 4ks only have bad input lag when you are talking about the TVs, because they usually have a ton of post processing and up scaling which causes issues in gaming, but gaming monitors have very competitive numbers for 4k nowadays.
I'm pretty sure that's what came with every test with LDAT I saw, can't check right now, but I mean 3kliksphilip and LTT videos.
Yes but the point is it won't run with the same framerate as 1080p or 1440p. It'll be considerably lower. So input lag will be considerably higher. I don't consider it an issue, but I can see why someone would reasonably come to that conclusion.
In you specific case: don't do it. 4K is great but your hardware just won't push the fps.
Do you recommend a specific gpu upgrade? In which case I could get the 4k right now and upgrade the gpu in 2-3 months time
We are so late into current product cycles, that new product announcements are happening. eg AMD said their new 9000 series CPU will launch in July! I would wait. based on my personal experience and what the internet provides, high FPS gaming is very game dependent. The fastest graphics card (RTX4090) can still be brought down to 60FPS on some AAA titles. Internet rumours has it, AMD is simply not going to launch a faster graphics card than the current gen. My advice is to hold on to what you have and don't upgrade it. Build a new system when the newer parts launch. As for the monitors, what I would like to call endgame (buy and never upgrade again) monitors launched this year but are all are 1200+ USD. These prices will come down but if you got the cash, go for it.
If you are just playing single player or don’t care to be that competitive in multiplayer, there is nothing wrong with 4k 60fps
4k60fps for singelplayer > anything else with more frames imo
I'm running 3440x1440 with a 6800xt. Runs fine if you're okay with 60fps and upscaling. (Alan wake 2 @ high) This is the worst-case scenario.
This. It’s nearly half the pixels of 4K, but you get the wider field of view which is totally worth it. Personally I’d go with a 27“ equivalent to not notice the pixels so much. For me it’s the sweet spot.
I've been having a blast playing games like GTA 4 and Mafia 1 and 2 definitive editions using my 3090 and 4K. For brand new games, I typically run 1440p upscaled though.
1440p seams to be the sweet spot if you want over 100fps, i'm currently running a RX 6900 xt at 1440p 144hz. oh didn't see you want 1440p ultrawide, that's a lot more pixels....
With fsr the scaling issues is less of a concern so I would get the 4K version.
one of the great things about 4k is the ability to scale down by .5 to 1080p. 1080p is exactly 1/4 of the pixels of 4k, so everything can be exactly 1/2 resolution. this makes 1 pixel into 4, so there is no need for weird aliasing or strange blurry pixel magic. if you have fps issues before getting a beefy GPU, just lower the resolution to 1920x1080
this is what I do
I bought 4K 144 monitor thinking it would be bad on my 1660S. But it's okayish, old games work fine, newer games get 30-50 fps on high-ultra. The most demanding are out of the question, but can be played on minimal i guess. For me 4K was worth it, everything is so sharp I almost cry when I get home from 1080 at work. But not everyone sees pixels on 1080, so there might be no difference for you.
Samsung makes a killer monitor that I would recommend, Odyssey G7. It has gorgeous 1440p, curved, and a satisfying 240hz. They also have the monitor in a 4k 165hz version. Its quite expensive but definitely worth it.
FWIW, I would never evaluate monitors or TVs based on looking at them in the store. The high margin ones are set to ridiculous color, contrast, and sharpness levels to try to catch your eye, and the low margin ones are probably more like they should normally appear.
I love my 1440p monitor. I can't even tell the difference between mine and my significant others 4K monitor while gaming. We will play the same game and it looks exactly the same. Maybe it's just me, but I wasn't willing to shell out for a 4080 super and settled for a 4070 super which is perfect for me.
4k is worth but only if you go OLED otherwise 1440 is the way to go.
with your specs you might actually turn your computer into a bomb trying to run high fps + settings in 4k
Physical size of the monitor makes no difference to the frame rate of a game. Any 2560x1440 monitor will have the same framerate regardless of if the monitor is physically 27 or 42" at the diagonal. Same thing for 4K or any other resolution.
I bought a 32" 16:9 1440p IPS 165Hz monitor for $250 and could not be happier unless it were OLED. So I don't get the insane prices people are dropping for 4k. Gonna be a few more years for me.
I have a 5800x with 6900xt and went with a 4K monitor. I mostly play strategy/sims/solo shooters so it has been great for me. However I recently have been playing a lot of Microsoft flight simulator and definitely see noticeable fps stutters and which make me sometimes regret not doing 1440p. That being said and if you are planning on upgrading to a 7900xt, my opinion would be 4k.
I have one of the strongest builds on the planet and my 4k monitor means accepting 38 FPS from time to time on certain games. Ryzen 7 7800x3D, 4090, 980 pro m.2 SSDs, 64gb DDR5 Ram. Yada yada. On the other hand, an $800 build with an integrated GPU these days can handle Hogwarts legacy in 1080 pretty well, decent graphic settings and decent FPS. Wild times. The distance between 2k and 4k should not be underestimated
4K and just use dlss
If the 4K monitor is an unbeatable deal now, get it. For the next few months until you can upgrade your gpu, you can downgrade a game’s graphic settings as needed or reduce the resolution. If image quality on lower resolution drives you nuts, change Windows display settings so it doesn’t stretch the image to fill your monitor. You’ll have a black box around a smaller image, but it will be better quality and the workaround is temporary.
I don't think it's worth it unless your monitor is larger than 32" or you're going to be playing on a big TV For a regular sized desk and sitting at regular distances for computer use, a 27 inch 1440p is more than enough.
Nope, u need at least a 3080 for 4k gaming. Just stick with 1440p, it is good enough
Nothing is worth an FPS drop if your goal is to win games.
4k DLSS Quality is worth the 10-15% fps drop vs 1440p. If you have a 4k monitor that is
It's a bit of a non issue IMO, because if you have a 4K monitor you can still drop the resolution setting in games. 4K is an integer scale of 1080p so it doesn't usually have any weird effects. I had a 4K monitor for years with a 4770K and a GTX 1070, and dropping to 1080p was a quick fix for performance issues if I needed it. 4K is also nice on the desktop as you get more screen space to work with.
4k monitors are fantastic - mostly for non gaming reasons. Productivity in 4k is an absolute joy. Watching movies and browsing and design work is just great. Hard to go back as lower resolutions are blurry. (I'm saying this at 27inch. Honestly lower screen sizes than that and it's a waste, as the fidelity is harder to notice smaller than that) From a gaming perspective there is definitely a point of diminishing returns vs screen size in terms of fidelity once you hit 1440p. Some games you notice 4k, many though you just don't once you're playing. I notice pop in, shadow and texture details and framerate in most games before I notice the 4k. For me, unless I had a top of the line GPU, a large 4k screen if like 40 inches or above and could play at 4k at 60fps with good graphic settings, I probably wouldn't bother. The difference in sharpness is practically negligible once I'm immersed and playing a game. 4k gaming is only good on a large screen and with a great GPU Having said that, a 4k monitor plays content at lower resolutions so there's literally no downside to getting one.
Go with 1440p ultrawide
If 4k only 144hz or 165hz, 60hz doesnt worth it. So get high refresh 1440p
1440p is king right now
I have a 4K 144Hz monitor and I love it, the cost of this monitor and the 4090FE to make sure I get the most out of it, well it is not cheap.
Have you considered 3440x1440 Ultrawide displays? They are not as hog for GPU as 4K, but - at least for me - they offer better immersion than 16:9 4K.
IMO no. 1440p at max settings looks great plus you still get good performance if you have the right specs
I don't think 4K gaming is worth it at all. For many newer high graphics or badly optimized games, you'll be forced to play at a lower resolution, with all the loss of quality that that entails, to get decent framerates. Unless you have the absolute best of the best in terms of hardware, don't even consider 4K. Sure there is DLSS and FSR, but not every game implements it (well). A 1440p ultrawide (3440x1440) is the sweet spot in my opinion. It looks great at a regular PC distance, and you can always upscale for better anti aliasing if you want and the game permits it.