TechPowerUp Survey: Over 25% Readers Game or Plan to Game at 4K Resolution

[AlienIsGOD]

4k gaming / lcd would be nice, but the gfx card needed to push frames is out of my price range. I'm pretty content with my 1440p asus VA32AQ and Rx 480 8gb combo atm, I only see myself going 144hz or something in my next build at 1440p w/ freesync

 

[Paganstomp]

Yessirreebob, I wanna play a PC game @ 4K that got ported over from a console. YepYepYep. Try and save a few hundered dollars on a videocard that goes out of stock then wait for E-tailers to jack the price up while waiting for the next CPU exploit to happen...

 

[Bansaku]

I recently had the option of either a 32" 60Hz 4K LED monitor, or a 27" 2K curved 144Hz for the same price (both Samsung). After lurking around the display models for a couple of hours, I really couldn't justify the increase in GPU power needed for 4K over 1440P, nor could I see any significant difference in detail. Watching the same demos played on the wall of UHD TVs , well, that's a whole different storey.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

My only complaint is your gaming needs are subjective to yourself as are mine. What games are you playing when you say 95%?




My above question also applies to you.



I will agree that both of your setups can do 4k gaming, but at lower settings depending on the game. I specifically said 4k ultra settings 60 fps in triple A titles.

Off hand like someone else said fps gaming i would drop to and stick at 1440p in multiplayer.

But farcry 4, doom , Wolfenstein (all) , forza horizon, gtaV ,are my recent list of gamed at 4k ultra game's.

I agree with your point of view on perception though ,so all in ill concede that others might reach different conclusions, but there are few games that can't be ran at 4k with just Antialiasing switched off today on my system , a few more would require slight adjustment ,not running low or medium though just down to high bar dues ex latest.

 

[dirtyferret]

That can only come from the mouth of someone who has never experienced 4K . The truth is it really depends on the type of games you play . For racing games 1st person shooters etc yes you are better with a 1440p high refresh rate monitor but for anything else 4K is superior .

my wallet is currently telling me 1080p is superior...

 

[rtwjunkie]

my wallet is currently telling me 1080p is superior...

The amount of money needed at 4K to constantly be at the bleeding edge just to be able to continue to sustain 60fps with all visuals on max as new more intense games come out is just not realistic with the reality of life and responsibilities as one gets older.

 

[Blueberries]

I will agree that both of your setups can do 4k gaming, but at lower settings depending on the game. I specifically said 4k ultra settings 60 fps in triple A titles.

Lighter titles like Doom or CS:GO were easy to V-Sync with maxed settings. Some heavier stuff like Witcher 3 I just turned hairworks and Antialiasing down a little which doesn't degrade visual quality at that resolution, at least to me.

YMMV but don't look at reviews for video cards and expect those FPS results, they represent the worst-case scenario. In an action packed game you're not actually going to notice a 3 second drop from 60-45 FPS, and in most scenes your FPS is going to be much higher.

 

[AsRock]

The amount of money needed to constantly be at the bleeding edge just to be able to continue to sustain 60fps with all visuals on max as new more intense games come out is just not realistic with the reality of real life and responsibilities as one gets older.

One would think sadly, turning out people don't think for them self's no more "COUGH" alexandria ocasio cortez voters

 

[Deleted member 158293]

Work all day with a 4K monitor which is fantastic, but definitely 2K high refresh for gaming.

Do not like 4K60hz for gaming at all...

 

[Vayra86]

You compare a sample size of 70 to that of 17,175+. Good job. These votes were cast by TPU's readers (and not just TPU forum members).

All opinion polls are conducted on the foregone conclusion that some people lie in their responses. Real inferences are drawn from those opinion polls.

Well, what I see is a move away from 4K just as much as people moving towards it. Why? GPU prices. Its not affordable and practical.

As for sample size: anonymous and one click away versus forum readers that support their vote with a post and some context... I know what I value more.

So no, not buying it.

26% taking 4K seriously is an important takeaway of this poll. It hints that the DIY PC hardware industry isn't stagnated and over the next few years, it will be fueled by upgrades to make 4K gaming possible.



If 26% of Autocar's readership drove cars pricier than a BMW 3-series, and the remaining drove Toyotas, their headlines would not read "three quarters of our readers drive Toyotas."

Agreed on the takeaway of this poll. Not agreed on your conclusion as to what this points out. This poll says nothing about stagnation in the DIY PC hardware industry, that industry is dominated by very different factors. Proof of that can be seen in how long we've been stuck at 1080p and how poor native 4K support really is in content, both in games and in visual content as a whole. Another proof can be seen in the number of GPUs capable of 4K at decent framerates, you can literally count them on one hand and their market share is FAR below 15%.

As for the headline, of course. But a headline is not necessarily the best representation of reality, its purpose is to attract readers.

 

[Daven]

Would be, if the percentage added up to 100%, no?

The correct percentage should be 73%.

I'm adding 73 + 7.9 + 1.6 = 82.5% of gamers right NOW do not use 4K. I think that is what the poster was getting at even though the 81% number is still slightly off. You can't rely too much on the statistic that someone wants to buy something but it is generally closer to the truth when you ask someone what is the current state of ownership.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

Well, what I see is a move away from 4K just as much as people moving towards it. Why? GPU prices. Its not affordable and practical.

As for sample size: anonymous and one click away versus forum readers that support their vote with a post and some context... I know what I value more.

So no, not buying it.

I think the uptake of 4k TVS might have something to say on this , plus adjusting some details down my old rx580 did better than most would expect at 4k.
It's not the majority that want highest IQ, or high Fps or 4k at this moment but it's not going down.
Only the smallest proportion of gamer's want high fps or 4k at high IQ in reality or both but regardless imho 4k will be a bigger hit than high fps iver time it's at least in the majority's vision unlike high hz due to the console's.

 

[TheTechGuy1337]

Off hand like someone else said fps gaming i would drop to and stick at 1440p in multiplayer.

But farcry 4, doom , Wolfenstein (all) , forza horizon, gtaV ,are my recent list of gamed at 4k ultra game's.

I agree with your point of view on perception though ,so all in ill concede that others might reach different conclusions, but there are few games that can't be ran at 4k with just Antialiasing switched off today on my system , a few more would require slight adjustment ,not running low or medium though just down to high bar dues ex latest.

Nothing to add to that. I agree.

Lighter titles like Doom or CS:GO were easy to V-Sync with maxed settings. Some heavier stuff like Witcher 3 I just turned hairworks and Antialiasing down a little which doesn't degrade visual quality at that resolution, at least to me.

YMMV but don't look at reviews for video cards and expect those FPS results, they represent the worst-case scenario. In an action packed game you're not actually going to notice a 3 second drop from 60-45 FPS, and in most scenes your FPS is going to be much higher.

The first quote pretty much explains my thoughts on gaming being subjective to the user. For me, Doom and CS:GO are not demanding games. They haven't been for a while and that is why 4k gaming is totally acceptable for older titles with lower system requirements. Witcher 3 is more up my ally as a demanding title.

 

[HTC]

I'm adding 73 + 7.9 + 1.6 = 82.5% of gamers right NOW do not use 4K. I think that is what the poster was getting at even though the 81% number is still slightly off. You can't rely too much on the statistic that someone wants to buy something but it is generally closer to the truth when you ask someone what is the current state of ownership.

Except that's not the same as

Instead of: "Almost 81% readers do not game or plan to game at 4k resolution"

Notice the underlined bits: they aren't the same, which is why the percentages don't add up to 100%.

73% don't game nor plan to @ 4K while all the rest either already do game @ 4K (even if @ lower quality) or plan to do so either this year or next year.

 

[Octavean]

Lighter titles like Doom or CS:GO were easy to V-Sync with maxed settings. Some heavier stuff like Witcher 3 I just turned hairworks and Antialiasing down a little which doesn't degrade visual quality at that resolution, at least to me.

YMMV but don't look at reviews for video cards and expect those FPS results, they represent the worst-case scenario. In an action packed game you're not actually going to notice a 3 second drop from 60-45 FPS, and in most scenes your FPS is going to be much higher.

To expand on that a bit,....theoretically,....

Conventional wisdom tells us, with good reason, that 60fps is a reasonable minimum. However, there have been suggestions that 4k with variable refresh rate tech (FreeSync / G-Sync) can allow for lower frame rates that actually empirically look smooth to the eye.

If you look here, scrub to about the ~5:35 mark, you'll see just about as much was said there:

Now this defies logic, we can all agree there I'm sure. However, without experimentation I can't say for sure either way. So theoretically the idea that a sustained ~45fps to ~50fps would looks as smooth as 60fps (which is admittedly a low bar) might seem counterintuitive but I would need to see it for myself firsthand either way.

 

[Vayra86]

I think the uptake of 4k TVS might have something to say on this , plus adjusting some details down my old rx580 did better than most would expect at 4k.
It's not the majority that want highest IQ, or high Fps or 4k at this moment but it's not going down.
Only the smallest proportion of gamer's want high fps or 4k at high IQ in reality or both but regardless imho 4k will be a bigger hit than high fps iver time it's at least in the majority's vision unlike high hz due to the console's.

Yes, I do understand the market share is growing, but what I am saying is the numbers we've seen here are inflated and you can easily halve them to get closer to reality. I also agree the demand for 4K will be higher than the demand for high refresh >60fps/hz gaming. But its easy to forget tech enthusiasts are tiny, tiny minority in an already fragmented marketplace with very different target audiences. And like you say: consoles drive gaming progress, and their hardware simply isn't sufficient for anything close to native 4K, while they don't even offer the possibility to tweak IQ settings.

 

[Kamgusta]

Except that's not the same as



Notice the underlined bits: they aren't the same, which is why the percentages don't add up to 100%.

73% don't game nor plan to @ 4K while all the rest either already do game @ 4K (even if @ lower quality) or plan to do so either this year or next year.

I wrote that, so I know what I did.

"Dont'game at 4k" 73% + "Will upgrade next year" 7,9% = 80,9%. I rounded it off to 81%.

I did not add the 1,9% of players that "Will upgrade this year" because there is only 1 month remaining, so it is a safe guess those people really plan to buy that equipment (or maybe they already placed an order for a new TV or VGA).

Why did I add the 7,9% instead? Let me make an example: I am not dating Kendall Jenner at the moment. But I want to date her next year. Sadly, I don't think I will. At least as long I remain a poor guy writing on TPU and she stays in LA. Those 7,9% people ore on my same condition, just replace "Kendall Jenner" with "4k". They wanted to, but they don't - and they probably won't.

p.s. My total doesnt' add at 100% because I wanted to be easy on the TPU editors, so I used their estimate for 4k (they took that 7,9% for granted).

 

[HTC]

I wrote that, so I know what I did.

"Dont'game at 4k" 73% + "Will upgrade next year" 7,9% = 80,9%. I rounded it off to 81%.

I did not add the 1,9% of players that "Will upgrade this year" because there is only 1 month remaining, so it is a safe guess those people really plan to buy that equipment (or maybe they already placed an order for a new TV or VGA).

Why did I add the 7,9% instead? Let me make an example: I am not dating Kendall Jenner at the moment. But I want to date her next year. Sadly, I don't think I will. At least as long I remain a poor guy writing on TPU and she stays in LA. Those 7,9% people ore on my same condition, just replace "Kendall Jenner" with "4k". They wanted to, but they don't - and they probably won't.

p.s. My total doesnt' add at 100% because I wanted to be easy on the TPU editors, so I used their estimate for 4k (they took that 7,9% for granted).

Dude:

According to the pie chart provided in OP, there's a total of 82.5% that don't play @ 4K right now (73% + 7.9% + 1.6%): the remaining 17.5% already play @ 4K, regardless of the image quality being used to do so.

Of the 82.5% mentioned above, 9.5% plan to be playing @ 4K either this year or next year.

I'll quote your original post:

How to distort reality, part 1:

Write: "Over 25% readers game or plan to game at 4k resolution"

Instead of: "Almost 81% readers do not game or plan to game at 4k resolution"

Notice the underlined bit: that's your mistake in the calculations. Had you not said the underlined bit, it would still be wrong because it would be 82.5% instead or nearly 81%.

I'm sorry to say OP's title is correct but you are not.

 

[Octavean]

There are also those in a quasi in between state.

For example, I don't necessarily care if I buy an AMD or nVidia video card. I just want a video card that has the features that I want and at the best price. Not too long ago I would have bought an AMD card but opted not to because AMD offerings did not have HDMI 2.0 / 2.x support. Whereas nVidia cards at the time did. I had 4K UHDTVs and a couple of 4K PC displays. Thus I wanted video cards that could work properly with a 4K UHDTV via HDMI 2.0 for 60hz (desktop use).

It didn't necessarily matter that the given video card didn't have the prowess to game at 4K resolution (none really did at the time). What really mattered was that the hardware would work together properly the way necessary for general computing functionality at 4K 60Hz. I could always lower the resolution for gaming.

Eventually video cards will be able to push 4K and become cheaper. Just like not all video cards in the past could support HDMI 2.0 / 2.1 / HDCP 2.2.

 

[E-curbi]

That can only come from the mouth of someone who has never experienced 4K . The truth is it really depends on the type of games you play . For racing games 1st person shooters etc yes you are better with a 1440p high refresh rate monitor but for anything else 4K is superior .

That's extremely interesting. I'm only a seldom gamer (4) titles since 2012, only play 45min at a time 4-6times a month.

I love Borderlands 2 and like Bioshock Infinite, and now playing Doom 2016 it's beyond amazing, only at the Argent Tower, I keep falling off the tower and the bridge. My double jumping boots aren't working so well. lol

Should I stay with 1440 and go with a higher refresh display for Borderlands 3 and Doom Eternal for 2019? OR go 4K?

Right now, I only have a work display that's truly been created for super clear and accurate text, not for gaming. But I could use a 55in 4K Samsung TV we are moving into the guest room.

I know I'll need to replace the underpowered 1050Ti, with a 2080.

 

[Readlight]

I disappointed hawing 4k in home but ps4 is slow.phe

 

[eidairaman1]

What' you talkin' 'bout Willis!?

Im still on 1280x1024.

Planning on 2K

 

[E-curbi]

What' you talkin' 'bout Willis!?

Im still on 1280x1024.

Planning on 2K

Been on 2K (2.5K) since 2014, it's sweet as honey for work and play.

 

[XiGMAKiD]

I'm planning to game at 4K60 when a 4K60 monitor priced around $300 AND a graphics card can run games at 4K60 with highest or second highest setting reliably priced around $300, otherwise I'll stick with my current setup until it can't run 1080p60 at medium setting reliably only then I'll upgrade my PC

 

[ZeDestructor]

Been on 2K (2.5K) since 2014, it's sweet as honey for work and play.

Aye. Been on 2560x1600 since 2014, and it is IMO the best unscaled resolution to get work done, and very good for games. Pretty much any and all higher-res monitors I just scale up until it looks like a 2560x1440 monitor anyways, 13" laptops excepted.. that gets scaled all the way to 1920x1080 equivalent.

well i can use lower resolutions ,its not like they don't work.

This. So much this.

I deal with loads of text in my day to day, so I'm waiting for 8K to get affordable enough to buy in. I am more than aware my 1080Ti will not be able to put out 7680x4320 60fps, but that's perfectly fine: running 3840x2160 or 2560x1440 scaled up to 7680x4320 is perfectly fine to me. Really, 1920x1080 would be enough for me for games based on my experiments with the laptops (1600x900 and 1920x1080 scaled to 3200x1800, and 1920x1080 scaled to 3840x2160) and desktop (including the not perfect scaling 1920x1200 up to 2560x1600).