What display resolution are you using?

[ViperXTR]

Still a 1080p user here (dual monitor setup)

 

[Vayra86]

This counts as a close to zero performance level than to a million FPS I'm aiming for.

What if I already tested 1440p in my favourite games and found out I have about 20 percent less performance than it's needed for a bare minimum of comfort? Not to mention real comfort which is twice the FPS. Upgrading a GPU is not an option, everything 2x the performance of 6700 XT costs wild money where I live and having less than 100% uplift is just a waste of an effort. Can't afford and even if I could... waste. I'd better invest in something else. Better audio system or a new fridge lol.

Sucks big time. Software engineers are still completely unbothered by scaling issues and such small pixel size is unusable at 100% from 50ish inches away. Yeah, I could easily put a monitor closer so I could be able to use it at 100% scale but it's darn uncomfortable when the display is so close.

Don't exist in 31.5" extension format (resounding about 39"). I tried using conventional 34" panels, vertical size is insufficient. 50 plus inches away from a display is the reason why.

This sums it up why I am using 1080p as my daily driver. It's not ideal but other options are either too cost inefficient or just non-existent.

Eh... I'm using 34 inch 3440x1440 at 100% scaling everywhere. Even in an older game like Civ 5 (yes the text is small, I agree) it still works perfectly fine. If there is a UI scaler, its often even better, but you don't 'need' it... I don't anyway. The view distance isn't much different from sitting in front of a 27 inch 1440p 16:9 panel either, the pixel density is the same as that, its just more width.

I guess its a YMMV thing. You're sitting quite far away for general desktop standards so there is that, and then yes, you can easily make do with lower res too, but you'll also have much less real estate. Still I agree its fine to game like that, totally, did so for many years... even 720p on a TV several meters away for a long time.

And I also agree that if you're not seeing the big advantage, don't jump on it either. Every resolution increase is also a new thing to get used to, it takes time, it has to have a real purpose or its just busywork. Also going back to something lower is generally not pleasant either. It'll work, but it defo feels like stepping down bigtime.

 

[mires-caverns.0k]

Add 5120 x 2880 please....

 

[AsRock]

I am using a 4K 3840x2160 as my primary display resolution.
I see that this 3840x2160, together with 2560x1440 are on the rise in the Steam Hardware Survey, while 1920x1080 is on the decline.

View attachment 244531
Steam Hardware & Software Survey (steampowered.com)

There is a poll, please vote.

Thing about using steam as a example is that because the default resolution is 4k don't mean people play at 4k

 

[Macro Device]

100% scaling everywhere. Even in an older game

I meant software, games excluded. StarCraft II Editor, for example, is complete balls. It ONLY works correctly if your scaling is 100%. Some GUI gets unclickable otherwise. It's not "I don't like it because it's ugly," it's "I hate it because it doesn't work, everyone knows it doesn't work and nobody attempts to fix it."

In gaming, though, difference between 720p and 1080p is drastic; whereas it takes some effort to distinguish 1080p from 1440p. 1440p and 2160p, in my case, is... why paying for invisible? And I for sure can handle some image quality losses at 1080p compared to 1440p but performance losses are like I AM STARVING ALREADY.

going back to something lower is generally not pleasant either

That's why going higher resolutions, going back to something (performance) lower, is not welcome by me. I chose the lowest acceptable resolution (1080p) and enjoy highest performance.