What display resolution are you using?

[ARF]

3840x2160

4K Monitor (2022) Preisvergleich | Günstig bei idealo kaufen

 

[Dr. Dro]

Those low-cost 4K monitors with 4 to 16 ms GTG are hardly what you want to be playing video games on, man.

 

[ARF]

Those low-cost 4K monitors with 4 to 16 ms GTG are hardly what you want to be playing video games on, man.

We have been playing video games on much worse CRT 1024x720 screens from around 1997-1998. So, 60 Hz is ok. If you want more, you pay double and get 120-144 Hz

 

[Dr. Dro]

We have been playing video games on much worse CRT 1024x720 screens from around 1997-1998. So, 60 Hz is ok. If you want more, you pay double and get 120-144 Hz

Yeah, thing is, those low-resolution CRTs have instant response times and zero input lag. Refresh rate is not everything, just look at the LG OLEDs with 120Hz having a faster response time than any 360Hz e-sports monitor with traditional panel tech

 

[Vayra86]

We have been playing video games on much worse CRT 1024x720 screens from around 1997-1998. So, 60 Hz is ok. If you want more, you pay double and get 120-144 Hz

Yeah and we could already get 1600x1200 on CRT just the same, and even high refresh was quite feasible - 100-120hz and even higher was also a thing at the time, and not by interpolation, but by literally doing things twice as fast. Additionally, no pixel retention, so no motion blur here; every CRT has inherent strobe synced to refresh. This also applied to TVs, and in general gaming on PAL 50hz or NTSC 60hz wasn't precisely an eye candy masterpiece. Visible flicker occurred for example; blurry/vague/distorted image; the cathode tube used to be rounded so that killed geometry towards the edge like a weird form of vignetting, as well, and analog pixel clock/timing controls, everyone has stories of how you had to adjust screens to be crisp on VGA. True flatscreen was already an advance of that age too; not an LCD thing. If you rewind the tape what you see on CRT in demands and development is the exact same thing as what's happened on LCD. So no, 60hz wasn't okay. It's just what you had access to, with all its 'qualities'. CRT was, after all, also VERY expensive, especially in the early color days. 60hz did the job, and not a thing more.

HD ready was a true step back in time resolution wise 1024x768 (not 720) was already commonplace for PCs, and 1600x1200 is rather close in pixel count to full HD already.

We're closing in on 2023 and we're still busy fixing (not really - working around, more like) all of LCD's shortcomings compared to CRT

That's why OLED is so nice; its literally better than CRT in every metric, or close enough for the metric to become irrelevant.

 

[mechtech]

4k at 27”. Wish I could get a nice
24” 4k. I’d get 2 of them.

I don’t have a clue why windows to this day seems to have its gui designed for 24” 1080p?!?!

 

[Vayra86]

4k at 27”. Wish I could get a nice
24” 4k. I’d get 2 of them.

I don’t have a clue why windows to this day seems to have its gui designed for 24” 1080p?!?!

Because for a desktop setting a very high resolution at 24 inch makes no sense (or, more specifically, the market share is minimal), and if you're using longer distance, you're not doing a productivity task, so you can use some other input device and huge buttons / overlays, whatever applications offer, like Steam Big Picture. And if you want small diagonal 4K and then proceed to scale everything 200-400%, you're literally doing it ass backwards. If you don't use scaling, you'll end up crawling inside your screen and killing your neck.

Windows is still a half serious OS, not a marketing playground entirely. There are scaling options as well, these days, its better than it used to be.

The one key point in every display purchase for a desktop is PPI. Not resolution, not diagonal, not curve or flat. Just PPI. If you keep that in sane levels, you have no scaling issues. Up to 120 is feasible, above is making your life difficult, wasting performance on detail you won't resolve, etc.

Also consider the fact UI scaling in applications is not commonplace either. Its there, sometimes. Other times, especially with older content, you're left looking at 8pt font at full blown 4K. The info density is high, yeah, great, too bad you can't read it

 

[Arco]

Because for a desktop setting a very high resolution makes no sense (or, more specifically, the market share is minimal), and if you're using longer distance, you're not doing a productivity task, so you can use some other input device and huge buttons / overlays, whatever applications offer, like Steam Big Picture. And if you want small diagonal 4K and then proceed to scale everything 200-400%, you're literally doing it ass backwards.

Windows is still a half serious OS, not a marketing playground entirely. There are scaling options as well, these days, its better than it used to be.

The one key point in every display purchase for a desktop is PPI. Not resolution, not diagonal, not curve or flat. Just PPI. If you keep that in sane levels, you have no scaling issues. Up to 120 is feasible, above is making your life difficult, wasting performance on detail you won't resolve, etc.

90 PPI for me is really good at 3-4 feet. I came from a 32" 1080P screen though.

 

[Vayra86]

90 PPI for me is really good at 3-4 feet. I came from a 32" 1080P screen though.

A lot of it is a journey in my experience; if you move up to 100-110, you'll likely notice once again that its a big step up that you really need to get used to. Lots of info to process. As you move up, diminishing returns happen. Much like high refresh. Above 100 it becomes 'yeah, I can still feel it, but can barely see it'... above 144 it becomes near impossible to double blind test differences.

And its not like your brain will happily work faster because there are more pixels. For those reasons competitive online play is often done at lower resolutions. Less to resolve = faster response.

 

[Space Lynx]

my 27" is native 1440p, but my PS5 lets me select 4k on the same monitor and it looks like 4k... not sure if its just upscaling from 1440 or not. on PC i can change to 4k as well, but text is too blurry to read no matter what I do to fix it, but games do look 4k vs 1440p when I try it that way!

so I guess I am gaming at both 1440 and 4k on same 27" screen? i don't know

 

[Vayra86]

my 27" is native 1440p, but my PS5 lets me select 4k on the same monitor and it looks like 4k... not sure if its just upscaling from 1440 or not. on PC i can change to 4k as well, but text is too blurry to read no matter what I do to fix it, but games do look 4k vs 1440p when I try it that way!

so I guess I am gaming at both 1440 and 4k on same 27" screen? i don't know

Pixels are pixels, native is your resolution.

Your text is blurry because it used to align to pixels perfectly, but at 4K, it doesn't.
If you run DSR on a monitor its the exact same thing.

As for 'looking 4K'... well there you go. That's pseudo console 4K for ya. In the meantime you have a huge amount of pixels that share a color between two~four 4K native pixel information sets. The reason you feel it looks the same, is because now the PPI behind your native resolution is too high for all detail to resolve (neither screen nor you can do it proper, really). If you DID resolve all detail, games would be perceived as blurry to you much like text, because you no longer have crisp edges at pseudo 1440p '4K'.

What you DO get from 4K on 1440p, is probably a wider viewport/camera on the game.

 

[mechtech]

Because for a desktop setting a very high resolution at 24 inch makes no sense (or, more specifically, the market share is minimal), and if you're using longer distance, you're not doing a productivity task, so you can use some other input device and huge buttons / overlays, whatever applications offer, like Steam Big Picture. And if you want small diagonal 4K and then proceed to scale everything 200-400%, you're literally doing it ass backwards. If you don't use scaling, you'll end up crawling inside your screen and killing your neck.

Windows is still a half serious OS, not a marketing playground entirely. There are scaling options as well, these days, its better than it used to be.

The one key point in every display purchase for a desktop is PPI. Not resolution, not diagonal, not curve or flat. Just PPI. If you keep that in sane levels, you have no scaling issues. Up to 120 is feasible, above is making your life difficult, wasting performance on detail you won't resolve, etc.

That’s a lot of scaling!! I use 150. And it looks way better and sharper and clearer than 100% 1080p 24” I’m far sighted so I can see individual pixels and looks like a screen door I front of it. Monitors are more of a personal preference thing like mice and keyboards. My 27” 4k is getting close to smart phone sharpness which is what I desire. Just need one now with a super light AG coating or maybe even none!!

right now at work I have my 1440p screen at 125 and sitting over 3ft away reading it easily actually yep 5ft away no issues. Like you said ppi pixels per inch and everyone is different. I would just prefer 24” because my 27” takes up a lot of desk space. 24” I would have space for two. and probably still use 150 scaling.

 

[qubit]

4k at 27”. Wish I could get a nice
24” 4k. I’d get 2 of them.

I don’t have a clue why windows to this day seems to have its gui designed for 24” 1080p?!?!

I've recently bought a fabulous 27" 4K 144Hz monitor, upgrading from a 27" 1080p 144Hz monitor.

A full 4K desktop is a bit too tiny for my tired, not so perfect eyes, so I set the desktop scaling to 2.00. This results in a 1080p-sized desktop with beautiful 4K resolution and no screen door effect. Try it!

 

[TITAN RTX 4100]

I use 2560 x 1440 at 165Hz, even though my gpu is totally capable of 4k. But for now I'm staying with 1440p. I'm just waiting for the new gpu's to come back in stock at prices that I can actually afford, As I'm not spending more than $1600 on a gpu. But since I'm spending up to $1600 on a new gpu, Maybe I will get a 4090 if those are in stock. Then I'll be able to get a 1440p 240Hz monitor!

1920x1080, 60 Hz. I love my 24" curved Samsung VA display.
4K is not only pointless, but also needs a graphics card that I don't wish to invest in. 1440p is still expensive if you're looking for a decent curved panel, so I say no thanks for now.

Of course, you have to pay more for the better gpu. Luckily for me I could do that.

 

[mechtech]

I've recently bought a fabulous 27" 4K 144Hz monitor, upgrading from a 27" 1080p 144Hz monitor.

A full 4K desktop is a bit too tiny for my tired, not so perfect eyes, so I set the desktop scaling to 2.00. This results in a 1080p-sized desktop with beautiful 4K resolution and no screen door effect. Try it!

I do. It’s what I have but at 150 scaling.

I tossed 24” and 1080p to curb about 7 years ago.

 

[Space Lynx]

i wish they would go back to making 23.8" 1440p screens. i'd love a 240hz OLED 23.8" 1440p. mmmm so sexy. immersive gaming for me!

@Vayra86 should I stick to native 1440 on my ps5 then to be safe? for optimal experience?

 

[ARF]

Because for a desktop setting a very high resolution at 24 inch makes no sense (or, more specifically, the market share is minimal), and if you're using longer distance, you're not doing a productivity task, so you can use some other input device and huge buttons / overlays, whatever applications offer, like Steam Big Picture. And if you want small diagonal 4K and then proceed to scale everything 200-400%, you're literally doing it ass backwards. If you don't use scaling, you'll end up crawling inside your screen and killing your neck.

Windows is still a half serious OS, not a marketing playground entirely. There are scaling options as well, these days, its better than it used to be.

The one key point in every display purchase for a desktop is PPI. Not resolution, not diagonal, not curve or flat. Just PPI. If you keep that in sane levels, you have no scaling issues. Up to 120 is feasible, above is making your life difficult, wasting performance on detail you won't resolve, etc.

Also consider the fact UI scaling in applications is not commonplace either. Its there, sometimes. Other times, especially with older content, you're left looking at 8pt font at full blown 4K. The info density is high, yeah, great, too bad you can't read it

M$ in Windows must do automatic scaling on retina displays just like Android does on smartphones.
It's simply M$ is not even half interested to make Windows a good OS. It is a half baked poor attempt. From 10 out of 10, I would give 2 of 10 to M$ for its Windows.

I am happy to own a beautiful 24" 4K display LG but they no longer sell it at the original 285-euro price tag.

24 Zoll 4K Monitor (2022) Preisvergleich | Günstig bei idealo kaufen

 

[outpt]

1440p 165hz with HDR enabled hot damn

 

[lexluthermiester]

Those low-cost 4K monitors with 4 to 16 ms GTG are hardly what you want to be playing video games on, man.

4ms to 6ns is fine. Anything above that and you'd be right.

 

[Vayra86]

i wish they would go back to making 23.8" 1440p screens. i'd love a 240hz OLED 23.8" 1440p. mmmm so sexy. immersive gaming for me!

@Vayra86 should I stick to native 1440 on my ps5 then to be safe? for optimal experience?

Whatever feels optimal to you, but that's what I would do. Native always feels best to me.

 

[ARF]

The prices of the 4K screens are fine.

4K 60 Hz screens:

https://www.idealo.de/preisvergleich/ProductCategory/3832F2938578.html?sortKey=minPrice

4K 144 Hz screens:

https://www.idealo.de/preisvergleich/ProductCategory/3832F2938578-5356919.html?sortKey=minPrice

 

[P4-630]

When I make the switch from 1440p to 4K I would avoid a 60Hz and would go with a 144Hz(+) one.

 

[ARF]

When I make the switch from 1440p to 4K I would avoid a 60Hz and would go with a 144Hz(+) one.

I see but don't forget that most of the internet video content is not even 60 Hz, it's 25 or 30 Hz.
When I watch 60 Hz videos they look beautiful and very smooth.

 

[Ruru]

When I make the switch from 1440p to 4K I would avoid a 60Hz and would go with a 144Hz(+) one.

I'll get one maybe in 2030 or something. Getting a card which can run games at 4K144 will cost more than ten kidneys..

Totally satisfied with my 32" 4K60 IPS and with some tweaking, 6700 XT runs practically anything at stable 60fps. Freesync helps with the possible little dips here and there.

 

[P4-630]

I see but don't forget that most of the internet video content is not even 60 Hz, it's 25 or 30 Hz.
When I watch 60 Hz videos they look beautiful and very smooth.

When I go 4K , I want to use it for gaming as well at that resolution.