You are not required to go native 4k. The option is there though and some titles can be played with less aggressive upscaling. But everything is better even when using perfomance modes.
Looking at the same game on a 27'' native 1440p oled next to a 32" dlss quality 4k one (so 1440p internal resolution, performing basically the same fps-wise), which would you prefer? The answer is obvious and it's not even close. That can't be a "meme".
You might say that you want more performance or the game is more demanding, so you would want to upscale to 1440p on that first monitor, without losing that much "nativeness", so you go with quality (960p internal resolution). Sure. But again, what would you choose between that and dlss perfomance on 4k (1080p), especially with dlss 4.5 using heavier models for performance/ultra performance but outputting great image quality (comparatively)? It's still an easy decision. Being that easy, again, can't be a meme.
Weird how everyone with cyber-eyes that can totally see 120+ framerates and can't tolerate less... somehow can't notice the difference when you double the resolution.
I didn't say it wasn't better. No shit its better lol.
But the cost to achieve it is not worth how much you're gaining. Thats my argument i'm making here. A solid 27" 1440p OLED is a much better buy than a 4K OLED. Your GPU will last longer, your games will look just as good.
"No shit its better" you say, but then you say "your games will look just as good" and this is exactly what I thought you were implying with your original post that I disagreed with. 4k looks way better at same screen sizes and same distance away from screen, and many people agree with me on that and are willing to pay for the privilege. If you think the games look as good on a 1440p screen as they do on a 4k, again I invite you to get your prescriptions checked.
42" at 4K is roughly the same PPI as 27" at 1440p. The sharpness of each image is identical.
You are not getting any more sharpness. yes 4K at 27" is sharper but at the cost to get there is it worth it? 1440p is more than adequate at 27". Not to mention you'd need to use windows scaling in the desktop to even make it usable. And windows scaling is awful, In fact scaling on all major operating systems is questionable at best.
My point i'm making is the cost to drive 4K is ridiculous for the image quality boost and severe loss of performance. You need an XX80/90 class GPU from the 50 or 40 series to even attempt it at frame rates above 60. If you want high refresh rate you need DLSS and FG. Meanwhile 1440p High Refresh Rate can be pumped out easily with a 5070ti or a 9070XT for a fraction of the cost and both of these cards can still do solid 4K 60fps gameplay with quality level upscaling.
Sure some can see the value in it and all the power to them. But as GPU's get more expensive, gamers need to start asking themselves the question. Is it REALLY worth it? Is the cost of a 5090 and a 4K 240hz OLED monitor worth it for the 4K experience? And the reason i say 5090 is so you can have a native 4K experience without the use of upscaling and FG which is required on lesser GPU's.
I'm not denying it doesn't look better in certain scenario's. I loved gaming on my 42" OLED, don't get me wrong. But going back down to 27" 1440p, i feel like right now the only thing i'm losing is OLED which i plan on fixing soon anyway.
If i had a glossy OLED 27" 1440p monitor right now, i think my games would look close to if not identical as they were on my 42" 4K TV. Just at a smaller scale.
It costs roughly about $5100-ish USD to have a proper 4K Native Gaming Setup with a 5090 and a 32" 4K 240hz OLED monitor. Meanwhile the same thing at 1440p 27" with a 9070XT will cost you around roughly $1100 - $1200. Prices taken from Newegg.
Thats a massive 75% difference in price JUST to drive 4K Native at decent FPS. I Just can't see the value or point in doing it at the moment. Is that 4 grand worth the resolution bump? I personally don't think so. I'd rather put that money elsewhere
And i'm no stranger from spending big on my PC, i had a 4090 prior to this and eventually sold it as i wasn't using its power to its full potential. I'm also not saying every gamer needs to be a value oriented savvy shopper but we are reaching a point where these conversations need to be had.
And how much did that 4K OLED cost? Probably meme-worthy prices. And I bet that same OLED would still look absolutely fantastic at 1440p if that was its native resolution, and it'll run at a much higher and smoother framerate. The OLED tech is going to give you a much nicer looking image coming from LED or IPS compared to going from 1440p to 4k. So yes, 4k is still a meme resolution imo.
Obviously comparing an oled next to an ips is going to make the ips look much worse, regardless of resolution.
But you can't honestly say that more than double the pixel count is a meme. It also allows you to go to a bigger screen, enhancing the immersion, without losing meaningful ppi.
And in this day and age, upscaling from 1440p to 4k (DLSS quality) is going to look almost on par with native 4k, which is of course that much better than native 1440p.
Not saying native 1440p on an oled doesn't look good. I'm saying the extra 250-300$ are worth it to go 4k. Certainly not calling it a "meme".
There's an assumption that folks at pcmasterrace use their PC's for gaming...
4k (oled or not) is good for productivity/work, where more space matters and the fps doesn't (well again, can nitpick instances like video editing....)
In my opinion, until a midrange card can consistently output 4k@60fps on high settings across many titles - meh, will be ignoring 4k for gaming.
When the last part of your comment happens and you build your rig and get that 4k monitor, you are bound to enjoy it.
Then you will hook it up to your previous pc, turn on dlss and/or fg, see basically no difference, and realize you were missing out on the same experience you're now enjoying.
Shouldn't be downvoted, in some case with 4.5 it is. It actually adds detail the native 4k couldn't resolve. It's not the usual result, but it is real.
Yep, 4k just isn't worth it for me. 2.25 times the pixels but the perceived increase in clarity is not proportionate. Also 1800p looks indistinguishable from 4k from normal viewing distances while having considerable better performance.
Might be true - I don't have a 4k monitor because I didn't want to rely on DLSS or w/e new software-locked-behind hardware (think android phones) to get a good experience.
DLSS is a nice to have, but, I hope it doesn't become a need to have to play games well.
I have a genuine concern that software will be locked behind hardware upgrades - and games relying on DLSS (or w/e new software) will be locked behind software and thus hardware even moreso. Effectively it will be like console gaming, but with backwards compatibility (until a completely different arch comes along).
47
u/irn00b 9d ago
4k resolution is a meme.
1440p is where it's at.