Smooth, yes, but there is visible blur still present. We shouldn't have to use high refresh rates either. I want clean motion at 60hz.
I had forgotten about the prototype at CES, though, so we'll see if that becomes reality.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
The difference between 1440p and 4K is virtually indiscernible even when sitting close to a 55" TV
- Thread starter Deleted member 2834
- Start date
I had forgotten about the prototype at CES, though, so we'll see if that becomes reality.
The best way I can describe the difference is that native 4K games almost look like they're in 3D because of the amount of depth the image has. Switching back to 1080p or even 1440p looks slightly flat in comparison.
Even in The Last of Us: Remastered I could tell the difference between 1800p and 4K, though it was a very small shift in sharpness.
Even in The Last of Us: Remastered I could tell the difference between 1800p and 4K, though it was a very small shift in sharpness.
No arguments here. Motion resolution has been my number one complaint since leaving plasma behind. Blur is much improved at 120 though, for instance, the ufo retains its details at https://www.testufo.com/
That being said, it of course, doesn't help consoles and non-beefier PC setups.
I'm still on a 1080p display. If a game supports supersampling, I typically go for 1.5x which ends up being 1620p. It's usually the point where I feel I start seeing significant improvement.
Are you sure he didn't say 6 feet?
I *think* Battlefield 1 and another game or two can do 1080p/120 on X1X.
But yeah, *everyone* with a gaming rig and a 7, 8, or 9th gen OLED needs to try 1080p/120 stat. I've got a B7A and it's a notable upgrade (agreed with John that there's still a lot of improvement potential, though).
I love 120hz on OLED, 2D scrollers are night and day vs 60hz, it's just horrid at 60.
The difference between 1440p and 2160p is quite noticeable in my opinion - especially if the game's output is sharp rather than using a soft TAA implementation.
But it's absolutely not worth the performance trade-off. I'd much rather play games at 1440p with 2.25x extra GPU performance available, compared to rendering 2160p native. It's nothing like a 2x visual improvement.
I've noticed that resolution differences are hyped-up here, while performance differences are often downplayed.
In my opinion, the jump from 60 to 90 FPS is as big as the jump from 30 to 60. It's a very significant difference - you don't even have to go to 120.
Yet here, lots of people act like 60 is barely any different to 30, and 120 or 240 FPS is something few people can see.
That's completely false. Even non-gamers are going to notice frame rate more than resolution.
I'm sure that many people have experienced this: parents watching SD channels because they are "more convenient" (The ch.101 they are used to rather than 151 etc.) and they "can't see the difference anyway".
Meanwhile features like motion interpolation are popular with the general public because it makes action much smoother and clearer - even if movie nerds dislike it.
I strongly disagree with that. Checkerboard is far worse than 1440p as soon as the image starts to move.
But you won't see why that is on consoles, because you can't disable the motion blur they use to cover up the resolution loss.
Most people sit closer to monitors relative to their size than they do to their televisions. 1440p vs 4K is likely going to be more noticeable there.
In fact, most of the "home theater" setups I've seen with giant TVs—75″ and up—have them placed in equally-giant rooms, and end up appearing smaller than people's setups with 55" and smaller TVs, or at a desk with a 27″ monitor.
That's a 75″ LCD. Doesn't look it from that distance though, does it?
...
Because of your posts, I've started moving my couch to about 6 feet from my 65 inch xbr930e. It has made a huge difference! I definitely see the difference between 4k and 1440p now.
Over time I've started to prefer a larger display though. I guess I'd love to play 120+ fps on a 4k screen, but its just not possible for me. So I've sacrificed the fps on my 1440p pc monitor to play on the larger tv. I think that is mostly due to the games I play (rarely play shooters anymore).
Last edited:
it's pretty damn easy to see, this thread is full of obvious hyperbole. It doesn't really look much better, we're clearly past the point of diminishing returns for any plausible household screen size, but its obviously sharper. If you voted you can't see it's probably time to look into a new perscription.
there is a difference between 1440p + 2160p.
i just don't think it's worth the performance increase. i recently bought a 4K monitor and i could tell the difference but after a few days i stopped really caring about it and just kept wishing i could play games without having to drop settings and deal with constant frame drops. so i went and bought myself a 1440p 144hz monitor.
4K is probably aimed more at consoles since they only need to do 30fps with much lower quality. maybe when PC hardware can chew through 4K 60hz then i will consider getting a 4K monitor again.
i just don't think it's worth the performance increase. i recently bought a 4K monitor and i could tell the difference but after a few days i stopped really caring about it and just kept wishing i could play games without having to drop settings and deal with constant frame drops. so i went and bought myself a 1440p 144hz monitor.
4K is probably aimed more at consoles since they only need to do 30fps with much lower quality. maybe when PC hardware can chew through 4K 60hz then i will consider getting a 4K monitor again.
I asked that because I had the same impression, but when I got to the settings the output was only on 60. Now i feel kinda bad because 120 fps spoiled me.
I can tell the difference but I've created in between resolutions so I barely use 1440p. If I can't get 4k 60 I drop to 3200x1800p. If I still struggle I use 2944x1656p which still looks great on my Samsung ks7000 4k 55. This is on a 2070 super. I'm playing shadow of the tomb raider at 1656p and it looks great.
I think I can tell the difference but I sit close to my 4k TV and--
I also own a 3440x1440p/144hz monitor which is where I play my PC games because the performance penalty for 4k is just too much. Even with my 2080ti. I really enjoy ultrawide gaming though.
Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference though like if I watch a 1440p vs 4k comparison video for a game. It depends on the scene/textures.
I think gaming in 4K/60hz is a big waste of resources for a PC. Much better to play at 1440p/144hz/Ultra-setting
Even with Control-- with Ultra/RTX/DLSS I was flying above 60hz
[edit] Actually maybe 4k gaming makes sense too me if you dont have a panel that goes above 60hz. Special situations like that.
I also own a 3440x1440p/144hz monitor which is where I play my PC games because the performance penalty for 4k is just too much. Even with my 2080ti. I really enjoy ultrawide gaming though.
Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference though like if I watch a 1440p vs 4k comparison video for a game. It depends on the scene/textures.
I think gaming in 4K/60hz is a big waste of resources for a PC. Much better to play at 1440p/144hz/Ultra-setting
Even with Control-- with Ultra/RTX/DLSS I was flying above 60hz
[edit] Actually maybe 4k gaming makes sense too me if you dont have a panel that goes above 60hz. Special situations like that.
Last edited:
I still play PC games at 1440p because I prefer higher fps over pixels. I have 6 4K TV's in my house and the difference is pretty obvious. I would say the smallest TV for 4K at a living room sitting distance should be 65" though.
That person's pixels are also four times the size of mine though.
I do most of my PC gaming on a 4K TV. Quite often I find myself bumping newer titles down to 1800p just to eke out the extra performance it offers, and I can 100% tell the difference. It's not enormous, but it's undeniably noticeable. That's just at 1800p, mind you. 1440p vs 4K is night and day. If they look the same to you, I question the quality of your display or your vision.
Likewise, if anyone gaming on OLED can't see the increase in motion resolution by choosing 120hz 1080p over 60hz 4k (if you can actually even hit 60hz 4K), I question their vision.
And of course, 120hz 1080p is half the fill rate of 60hz 4k so it is more easily achieved.
so? people tent to sit about 40 to 50 cm from a monitor. A tv screen people are sitting about 1.5x times the diagonal size of the tv( so 55 inch is about 2 meters).
Again i can see it, but its not a night and day difference between 4k an 1080p at normal distances. HDR makes more of a difference than 4k ever will.
If OP sits 1.5m from a screen that's four times the size of the one I sit 0.5m from, is it really going to be taking up much less space in his field of vision?
dont really get what point your trying to make tbh
1.5 meters from a 55 inch is on the close side.
At 1.5 meters I could probably tell the difference.
but we are usually at 2.5-3, on 60".
now, I've yet to see anything in 4K projection at our normal distances. When our 1080p projector in the basement finally dies it will probably be replaced with a 4K, becasue it probably has 4-5 years left in it. Will be interesting to see how that plays for us.
but we are usually at 2.5-3, on 60".
now, I've yet to see anything in 4K projection at our normal distances. When our 1080p projector in the basement finally dies it will probably be replaced with a 4K, becasue it probably has 4-5 years left in it. Will be interesting to see how that plays for us.
i did, he talks about him having a 55 inch 4k tv and sitting 1.5 meters away from it and that he cant or barely see a difference. And he thinks its a waste or resources atm.
If I'm playing from my couch on my TV I can not tell the difference unless there's horrible shimmering. When I'm playing games at my desk I can see the difference immediately. I have 20/15 vision in both eyes (due to surgery), so I'm definitely not blind.
Framerate is clearly discernable no matter the screen.
Framerate is clearly discernable no matter the screen.
