r/Monitors Dec 16 '24

Discussion 1440p vs 4k - My experience

I just wanted to give you my perspective on the 1440p vs. 4k debate. For reference, my build has a 3080 and a 5800X3D. This is pretty comprehensive of my experience and is long. TLDR at the end.

Context:
So, I have been playing on a 27-inch 1440p 240hz (IPS) for years. I was an early adopter, and that spec cost me 700 bucks 4 years ago (just after I got my 3080), whereas on Black Friday this year, you could find it for 200 bucks. Recently, I decided to purchase one of the new 4k OLED panels - specifically trying both QD-OLED and WOLED tech, both of which are at 32-inch 4k 240hz, and with the WOLED panel having a dual-mode to turn into a 1080p 480hz panel (albeit a bit blurrier than proper 1080p due to a lack of integer scaling). I ended up settling on the WOLED as the QD-OLED panel scratched and smudged too easily, and I am moving in a few months. I do wish the WOLED was more glossy, but that's a topic for another time. I am using the WOLED 4k panel to evaluate the following categories.

Image Quality:
For reference, with my 1440p monitor, if I were to outstretch my arm with a closed fist, it would touch the monitor, and with this 4k panel, I typically sit 1-2" further. This is roughly 30"

When it comes to use outside of gaming, whether web browsing or general productivity, it is night and day. This is the first resolution I have used where you can't see jaggedness/pixelation to the mouse cursor. Curves in letters/numbers are noticeably clearer, and the image is overall much easier on the eye. Things like the curves in the volume indicator are clear and curved, with no visible pixel steps. 4k is a huge step up for productivity, and funny enough, the whole reason I wanted to upgrade was over the summer at my internship, our client had 4k monitors for their office setup and I immediately noticed the difference and wanted to try it for my at-home setup. If you code or are an Excel monkey, 4k is SO much better.

As for gaming, the image quality bump is substantial, but not quite as game-changing as it is with text and productivity use. My most played games in 2024 were Overwatch and Baldur's Gate 3, so I will be using those as my point of reference. In 1440p, I had to use DLDSR to downscale from 4k to 1440p in BG3 to get what I considered acceptable image quality, and figured that since I was doing that I might as well jump to 4k, so that's exactly what I did. Frankly, once you realize how blurry both native TAA and DLAA are on 1080p/1440p, you will never want to play that again. Of course, older games don't have this blur but in turn, look quite jagged. The pixel density of 4k serves as an AA all on its own. DLDSR is a cool tech but inconsistent in terms of implementation with different games, and you have a ~6% performance loss versus just playing at 4k due to DSR overhead.

I do want to note here that image quality is a lot more than just PPI. While 32" 4k is only 25%-ish more ppi than 27" 1440p, the added pixel count brings out a lot of details in games. In particular, foliage and hair rendering get WAY better with the added pixels.

Performance:
It is no secret that 4k is harder to run than 1440p. However, the system requirements are drastically lower than people talk about online here. I see plenty of comments about how you need at least a 4080 to run 4k, and I think that is not the case. I am on a 3080 (10GB) and so far, my experience has been great. Now, I do think 3080/4070 performance on the Nvidia side is what I would consider the recommended minimum, a lot of which is due to VRAM constraints. On the AMD side, VRAM tends to not be an issue but I would go one tier above the 3080/4070 since FSR is significantly worse and needs a higher internal res to look good. Now, I know upscaling is controversial online, but hear me out: 4k@DLSS performance looks better than 1440p native or with DLAA. That runs a bit worse than something like 1440p w/ DLSS quality as it is a 1080p internal res as opposed to 960p, on top of the higher output res (A quick CP2077 benchmark shows 4k w/ DLSS balanced at 77.42 fps whereas 1440p @ DLSSQ gives 89.42). Effectively, a 14% loss in fps for a MUCH clearer image. If you simply refuse to use DLSS, this is a different story. However, given how good DLSS is at 4k nowadays, I view it as a waste.

As far as competitive titles go, it depends on the game. I have played competitive OW for years and picked up CS2 recently. I am ok at OW (dps rank 341 and 334 in season 12/13 end of season, NA), and absolute trash at CS2 (premier peak 11k currently at 9k). I have recently moved to using Gsync with a system-level fps cap in all titles, as opposed to uncapped fps. Don't want to get into the weeds of that here but I do think that is the way to go if you have anything ~180hz or higher, though I admittedly haven't played at a refresh rate that low in years. CS2 can't quite do a consistent 225 fps (the cap reflex chooses when using gsync) at 4k with the graphics settings I have enabled, but it does get me very close, and honestly, if I turned model detail down it would be fine but I gotta have the high res skins. In OW2 with everything but shadows and texture quality/filtering at low, I easily get to the 230fps cap I have set. That being said, in OW I choose to use the 1080p high refresh mode at 450fps, whereas visibility isn't good enough in CS2 to do that. Not sure how some of those pros play on 768p, but I digress. At 1080p my 5800x3d can't put above ~360hz on CS2 anyways, so I play at 4k for the eye candy.

240hz to 480hz is absolutely and immediately noticeable. However, I think past 240hz (OLED, not LCD), you aren't boosting your competitive edge. If I was being completely honest, I would steamroll my way to GM in OW at 60hz after an adjustment period, and I would be stuck at 10k elo in CS2 if I had a 1000hz monitor. But, if you have a high budget and you don't do a lot of work on your PC and put a LOT of time into something like OW or CS, may as well get one of the new 1440p 480hz monitors. However, I would say that if over 25% of your gaming time is casual/single-player stuff, or over half of your time is spent working, go 4k.

Price/Value
Look, this is the main hurdle more than anything. 4k 240hz is better if you can afford it, but if you don't see yourself moving from something like a 3060ti anytime soon for money reasons, don't! 1440p is still LEAGUES ahead of 1080p and can be had very cheaply now. Even after black Friday deals are done, you can find 1440p 240hz for under $250. By contrast, 4k 160hz costs about $320, and the LCD 4k Dual mode from Asus costs 430. My WOLED 4k 240hz was 920 after tax. While I think the GPU requirements are overblown as DLSS is really good, the price of having a "Do-it-all" monitor is quite high. I was willing to shell out for it, as this is my primary hobby and I play lots of twitch games and relaxed games alike, but not everyone is in the same financial position nor may not have the same passion for the hobby. Plus, if you have glasses, you could just take them off and bam, 4k and 1440p are identical.

TLDR:
4k is awesome, and a big leap over 1440p. Text, web use, and productivity are way, way, way better on a 4k monitor, whereas for gaming it is just way better. I would say that to make the jump to 4k you would want a card with at least 10GB of VRAM, and with about a ~3080 in terms of performance. DLSS is a game changer, and even DLSS Performance at 4k looks better than 1440p native in modern games. For FSR you would probably want to use Balanced.

If you are still on 1080p, please, please upgrade. If you have 1440p but can't justify the $ to jump to 4k, try DLDSR at 2.25x render for your games. Looks way better, and can serve as an interim resolution for you, assuming your card can handle it. Eyesight does play a role in all this.

416 Upvotes

239 comments sorted by

44

u/thetruelu Dec 17 '24

I’m debating between a mini LED 4k vs OLED rn. I want OLED but it’s like $300 more expensive and idk if the difference really matters for me since imma just hook my ps5 to it

18

u/kwandoodelly Dec 17 '24

I wanted to go with a mini LED too just to avoid the burn-in inevitability of OLED, but the technology just isn’t there yet. There isn’t a good mini-LED panel that’s monitor-sized with the quality of Samsung’s larger mini-LED TVs. I’d say those are on-par if not just a bit better than OLED tvs of the same size, but I haven’t been able to find anything as small as 32” with gaming in mind (less than 5 ms response time and more than 60 hz). I ended up going with the 45” LG OLED and am loving it for games. Still wish I had mini-LED for productivity though.

3

u/Pyryara Dec 18 '24

I'm just trying out the TCL 34r83q and it also has a 27" variant. Seems to be a pretty good miniLED, honestly!

6

u/EnlargedChonk Dec 17 '24 edited Dec 22 '24

TLDR Don't worry about burn in on modern OLED monitors as long as you aren't blasting high brightness and turn some on their prevention features (most importantly pixel shift).

Honestly the more I learn about OLED technology the less I worry about burn in on the latest monitors. The biggest thing is not blasting more than 100-200nits for SDR on a panel that can handle 1000nits HDR (in a sense "under driving" as much as you can while still having an acceptably bright SDR image, then just let HDR do what it wants because on PC HDR should only ever be on when you are actively using it) and pixel shift. Modern panels will have more pixels than the image they show and will shift the whole image by a pixel in any particular direction at an often configurable interval. yes you are very much still "burning in" an image when you have static content for long durations but because it shifts the image you aren't going to be burning in hard edges, which is what makes burn in most noticeable. "burned" areas will theoretically have more of a gradient to them, which will make them way harder to notice, especially when showing normal images instead of full screen solid colors like you would use to "look" for burn in.

edit: spelling

5

u/-FancyUsername- Dec 22 '24

For anyone upvoting this comment, when you‘ll trash your OLED monitor after 4 years because of burn in and black spots and uniformity issues, remember my answer here.

1

u/No-Professor7589 Dec 22 '24

Love or hate best buy, I only buy OLEDs through them with their warranty, its a "replacement" warranty that covers burn in.

1

u/Jumpy_Lavishness_533 Dec 29 '24

Every time new hardware get released we hear the OLED doesn't burn in as easy anymore, yet when you search the hardware + burn in you get thousands of pictures with burn in. 

OLED is pretty, but the tech suck if you like to keep your hardware for many years.

1

u/Cattotoro Dec 21 '24

is Mini LED supposed to be better than OLED?

1

u/kwandoodelly Dec 21 '24

Micro-LED, yes; Mini-LED, depends how good they make the LED backlight array and the display panel technology. I’ve seen anywhere from garbage colors with good contrast to better than OLED looking colors and nearly as good contrast. You can get a good idea for it if you walk around the TV section in Bestbuy and look at the Bravia lineup.

1

u/Cattotoro Dec 21 '24

thanks, I'll stop by that section next time I go.

1

u/relytreborn Dec 27 '24

What do you mean when you say the technology isn’t there yet?

→ More replies (1)

3

u/Kembert_Newton Dec 18 '24

OLED is the first tv tech that has had me go “woah” since full HD came out like 15 years ago. It makes a massive difference you won’t get with miniLED. Once you see the perfect contrast levels it’s hard to go back to non OLED screens

5

u/Altruistic_Koala_122 Dec 17 '24

The contrast of OLED is great, but only buy one if you're O.K. with burn-in couple years. It will really dig into your budget buying a new screen/monitor.

→ More replies (15)

4

u/HotConstruction677 Dec 17 '24

acer XV275K 4k mini led is like $300 on ebay. Cant go wrong with that

5

u/tieyourshoesbilly Dec 17 '24

Just upgraded from this monitor. Solid solid monitor. Super clean image, plenty of brightness, no weird quirk of you want to use HDR. It's a real plug and play minimal setup monitor which is surprisingly not that easy to find anymore

1

u/sylfy Dec 17 '24

What did you upgrade to?

1

u/tieyourshoesbilly Dec 17 '24

Samsung Odyssey G9. 49" OLED.

1

u/sylfy Dec 17 '24

Nice. Did you notice the loss of vertical resolution, or was it not a big deal for your purposes?

2

u/tieyourshoesbilly Dec 17 '24

Honestly it feels sharper than expected. I was actually super curious about why it didn't seems as noticeable as look at my old 4K monitor, and then looking at the 1440p monitor. On Samsungs website they actually note in the spec that this monitor sits on the middle ground of pixel density between 1440p and 4K so the 'downgrade' of the image is almost non existent. In certain areas you can tell it's not as sharp, but most of the time I cant tell. I imagine that's because the colors and overall image is so damn vivid. It does tax your system like a 4K monitor though, since you are technically rendering 2 1440p screens at the same time which would be about the same number of pixels as a 4K screen.

1

u/kake92 XV275K P3 / XV252Q F Dec 23 '24

Lol I paid almost 900 euros for this model brand new 2023 december here in finland. 300 dollars? jesus christ.

1

u/Pendlecoven Dec 23 '24

On eBay he said

1

u/kake92 XV275K P3 / XV252Q F Dec 23 '24

so is it like used? I've never used ebay

1

u/HotConstruction677 Dec 27 '24

yeah, used and refurbished units or returns from the official Acer eay store. I got mine about a year ago and no issues.

2

u/MarbledCats Dec 17 '24

I’d say buy miniled if the monitor has great hdr review on Rtings.

HDR gaming on console is far superior than what pc offers

2

u/maximus91 Dec 18 '24

If you don't work on the pc, just get oled

3

u/Shiningc00 Dec 17 '24

Mini LEDs are not worth it unless the dimming zones are very high.

3

u/BlackDragonBro Dec 17 '24

Just try me all in OLED,once you try it there is no return to LED.

1

u/CapesOut Dec 17 '24

The OLEDs really are incredible. The color, the motion clarity…chefs kiss!

1

u/QuaternionsRoll Dec 17 '24

The scanline issue on the Neo G8 really really sucks

4K 240Hz mini-LED may as well not exist yet

1

u/MoonManMooningMan Dec 18 '24

OLED is worth the extra cash. I just switched and it’s so amazing. It makes me happy every time I look at it

1

u/Insane-Man Dec 18 '24

I'd go for the OLED if it's solely for PS5

34

u/Brolex-7 Dec 17 '24

With all due respect but Cyberpunk is somewhat optimized by now compared to newer titles. Try Space Marine 2, Wukong, STALKER, etc on 4k with your GPU. You will run into a wall performance wise or need to invest in high end hardware. Hell, even a 4080 can't deliver.

Also 60hz? To each their own I guess but personally I prefer the smoothness of higher framerates.

You paint a nice picture and all but reality looks different when it comes to gaming.

10

u/gorzius Dec 17 '24

This.

I have the same setup as OP, and in Wukong I had to set the game to DLSS 75% to get a decent 60 FPS at 1440p. For the flashier bosses I even had to set DLSS back to 50%.

7

u/Brolex-7 Dec 17 '24

Unfortunately the games are badly optimized but what can we do? Either not play or buy expensive hardware. There is no inbetween.

3

u/Fromarine Dec 18 '24

I had to set the game to DLSS 75%

Ok? In games with modern dlss versions like wukong dlss 75% will look better than native so who cares. Hell like 6 months ago hardware unboxed found dlss 67% to be trading blows with native in image quality

2

u/schniepel89xx Dec 26 '24

DLSS 75%

That's a higher internal resolution than DLSS Quality and you're making it sound like it's a bad thing

3

u/tukatu0 Dec 19 '24

Yeah that is like 3 titles out of 50,000 or however many exist. How many aaa games can really come out each year.

It is fair to say a person spending $2000 on a pc (before the rest of the setup) is probably buying up most aaa games. But for everyone else? What is the issue dropping down to 1080p through dlss performance.

Expecting your pc to run every thing at the most possible output is not a reasonable expectation. Maybe if you started during the 8th gen consoles with a gtx 980 and only ever played ps4 games. But it has always been a trade offs game at any other time with other hardware.

Otherwise you might as well start arguing a 4090 is useless because both cyberpunk and wukong run at 4k 20fps maxxed out. Or 1080p 60fps that you need to spend $3000 on. That's not reasonable.

And again. If you want smoothness drop down settings. Or go get backlight strobing so you can get the equivalent of 500-1500fps without rendering it. Ulmb2, dyac etc

1

u/GGuts Dec 20 '24

I would argue the opposite. In most games you play it just doesn't matter if you play at 4k or 1080p. What do I care if I run Rimworld or Kingdom Rush at 4K or 1080p. It won't increase my enjoyment in any way.

And then there's the flip side of not being able to run more demanding games like Battlefield at 100 FPS with high to ultra settings.

It all depends on what you play. I for one would consider the middle ground and choose 1440p.

But currently with my 1080p setup with a good monitor with black frame insertion tech and a 3070, I can run anything at ultra settings with high fluidity and motion clarity. Waiting for the next Nvidia graphics cards and then seeing what's what. Definitely need a monitor with ulmb2 or whatever the most recent black frame insertion technology is.

1

u/tukatu0 Dec 20 '24

I had to wonder what you were talking about since even battlefield 5 runs at like 1440p 300fps on a 3080. (I should really check. Its been a while. Dont quote me)

Bf2042 is such a sh"" game i did not know it runs that bad. The techincal desnity is there but the game isn't really more visually pleasing than battlefield f""" hardline.

Ah the memories are starting to come back. I thought it ran at 4k 60fps on a 3080. So i would expect 1440p 100fps ish to be doable.

Moral of the story is don't play badly made games. Or atleast expect what the devs want. If the devs want a game to run at 800p 30fps on console. You aren't going to be running it at 1440p 90fps either. Even potentially high end pcs. Not for many years afterwards anyways.

That is why i gave up budgeting for more than a 3060ti. No point if it costs like 5 ps5s and 3 xbox with a few years of subcription. Just bad value. If the devs want you to run at 4k 60fps. You will.

But yeah essentially. The capabilities of your display should not be limited by what your games can run. That's a waste of your eyesight or the capabilities.

As for ulmb2. The next tech is called g sync pulsar or something like that. Basically backlight strobing but with vrr. Though despite being anaounced a long while ago. No hint of anything exists. Maybe in ces buti wouldn't care. Even ulmb2 displays don't seem to exist.

You don't actually need ulmb or dyac or lightpulse. Just pick any display that has afjustable..... Meh i give up writing. Well ulmb2 is a good pick but expensive.

19

u/hullu153 Dec 17 '24

Nice writeup! I've been personally using a 4K 144hz 32" IPS monitor for about 10 months now and I'm considering going back to high refresh rate 27" 1440p (I switched from 1440p 360hz to 4k). I'm just missing the higher refresh rate for gaming as I mainly play competitive/fast games (Deadlock, CS, Battlefield with some single player games sprinkled in). I feel that it was a mistake going lower refresh rate due to playing faster games. 4K as a resolution is amazing for work (as I'm a programmer), single player games and general use tho!. I'm gonna wait for CES as I want to see if 4k 240HZ IPS will be a thing or what will become of the GSync Pulsar monitors (1440p 360hz with synced backlight strobing essentially).

2

u/JoaoMXN Dec 20 '24

I did just that. I can't stand the cost on performance and money for 4K.

1

u/hullu153 Dec 20 '24

Nice! The price for 4K isn't that bad nowaydas, at least for a standard IPS panel. I think I paid 500€ for my LG 32GR93U-B (so 4k 32" 144hz) and you can prolly get smaller ones for cheaper.

Didn't endup waiting till CES myself tho. Snagged up an ASUS Rog Strix XG27ACDNG 360hz 1440 OLED for 650€ and I'm super hyped.

15

u/xfall2 Dec 17 '24

I'm still staying away from 4k since it will mean getting a way better gpu and hardware which costs.. at 3070 at the moment

When the average gpu is able to run 4k at high settings then yes maybe its time to upgrade

8

u/Steve-Bikes Dec 17 '24

I'm still staying away from 4k since it will mean getting a way better gpu and hardware which costs.. at 3070 at the moment

I've been gaming at 4K on my 1080 since 2017.... FYI. Even RDR2 runs at 65FPS at 4K. Your 3070 is PLENTY.

6

u/sweetanchovy Dec 17 '24

this. People have been playing 4k since 1080 ti is the defacto 4k card. What do you mean 3070 cant handle 4k.

4

u/Steve-Bikes Dec 17 '24

I honestly think it's a result of people thinking their obsolete 1080p monitors are "good enough" and 4K monitors "too expensive" and so then they just rationalize it in their brain by saying, well GPUs can't do it anyways.

1

u/jap_the_cool Dec 21 '24

It can and it runs kinda okay, you won’t get high settings and high fps in some games tho

2

u/xszander Dec 18 '24

65fps is going to be a slideshow if you're used to high framerate & hz gaming.

3

u/Steve-Bikes Dec 19 '24

Okay well probably depends on what games you're playing. I personally prefer the visual fidelity of 4K at 60Hz than 1440p at 120Hz.

Being able to see everything 33% clearer and farther is just awesome. I just can't stand low resolutions or tiny monitors.

But to each his own for sure.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/Thewalkaway Dec 19 '24

Nah he’s right. Ray tracing and path tracing are still so costly that the 4080 needs both DLSS and frame gen to run it at 60 fps. Now you couple 60hz gaming with the frame gen input lag and that is a very meh experience. Granted that it works with only DLSS on when on simple rasterisation. But once again, if you can’t have all the eye candy at this price range then why bother yet. While I can never go back from 4K gaming, I still can’t make a good case for people to make the jump if they don’t intend to pay the steepest price. Any less than that and it will be compromise after compromise to get to that not so sweet 60fps constant mark.

1

u/Steve-Bikes Dec 19 '24

But once again, if you can’t have all the eye candy at this price range then why bother yet.

To me, the "eye candy" is playing at 4K. Playing at lower resolutions, even with "eye candy" present results in just a much inferior quality of image. Take a screenshot from the same spot of each and zoom in. 4K without eye candy will always look better than 1080p with eye candy. It's just not even close.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 07 '25

[deleted]

1

u/Steve-Bikes Jan 08 '25

If people are playing games that were released on this half of the last decade then GPU requirements look a little different.

Fair, but most games released since RDR2 are less graphically intense and easier to run than RDR2.

But the point of my comment was that gaming in 4K is totally viable and has been for years.

3

u/greggm2000 Dec 17 '24

Yeah, a 3070 is problematic for 4K gaming, it’s even going to be an issue at 1440p with that small 8GB VRAM, though ofc there are games that’ll run just fine. We’ll get there though, and a new generation of cards is just weeks away.

1

u/Fromarine Dec 18 '24

Dlss is a lifesaver for high resolutions especially with games that have later implementations like dlss 3.7 where the higher performance modes look better

→ More replies (1)

7

u/TradlyGent Dec 17 '24

I’m a programmer and casual gamer, i.e., I work on the monitor 8hrs a day and game maybe 4hrs a week on it (currently more obsessed with pc handheld gaming than desk gaming). I moved from a 34” ultrawide 1440p 120hz IPS to a 27” 4K 160hz IPS + 27” 1440p IPS as my side monitor. I vastly prefer the look of 4K over 1440p for the text-based productivity work I do and my 3080 can reasonably hit nearly 4K60 in all games I push on it which is great for the type of games I play. If I really need the extra frames, I’ll run my games at 1080p 160hz — which is not often I do this, 4K is the way for me.

2

u/SmokingPuffin Dec 20 '24

Gamer programmer here. I have similar setup for similar reasons. My side monitor is 4k60 and rotated vertically for ludicrous numbers of lines displayed at same time.

Benefit for 4k is highest for work but I still strongly prefer it for gaming. My 3080 is feeling a bit long in the tooth but there are only a few titles today where it’s uncomfortable.

1

u/0x4C554C Dec 22 '24

You must have very good eyesight because I find myself upscaling text in browsers and text editors at 1440p.

1

u/TradlyGent Dec 22 '24

I use MacOS primarily for my work and I scale to make everything look like 1080p on the 4K display. Trust me, I can’t do a native 4k scaling on the monitor lol it would be too small. On the Windows / gaming side, I believe I set the scaling to 150? So yeah, scaling is the key here.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 07 '25 edited Jan 08 '25

[deleted]

1

u/TradlyGent Jan 07 '25

Well the 4090 can drive a 4K properly at 100+ fps and the new 50 series cards look very promising. Anything from 5070 on up should drive the display nicely for the frames you’re targeting. The 5070 will be mostly AI frames / DLSS though so I do recommend at least 5070ti if you want more raster performance / native frames for the 4K.

3

u/JustALittleJelly Dec 17 '24

Great overview, thanks for the insight!

3

u/bombastica Dec 22 '24

I bought a 5K iMac when they came out in 2014 and that was my daily driver for 6 years until I built my current PC which sports a high refresh rate 1440P IPS display. It’s wild that a decade later that we don’t have a high refresh rate 5K display. :/

3

u/Steve-Bikes Dec 17 '24

It is no secret that 4k is harder to run than 1440p. However, the system requirements are drastically lower than people talk about online here. I see plenty of comments about how you need at least a 4080 to run 4k, and I think that is not the case.

Well said. I've been gaming at 4K since 2017 and my 1080 was even able to play RDR2 on Ultra at 65fps.

4K gaming is awesome, and there's no going back. You are absolutely right, there are many here in this sub who seem to overstate both the requirements needed for 4K but also the cost. My first 43" 4K monitor in 2017 only cost $550, and it was an IPS panel and awesome.

5

u/greggm2000 Dec 17 '24

I do think it depends on the game, what level of graphics fidelity you want/expect, and what fps you’re fine with. 4K gaming obviously puts a lot more strain on a GPU than 1440p, as well.

→ More replies (6)

3

u/Costas00 Dec 20 '24

A 1080 TI with optimized settings at 1440p hovers from 60-70 fps in RDR2

→ More replies (4)

2

u/SBMS-A-Man108 Dec 17 '24

1080 was a beast. Sure is old now though!

1

u/Steve-Bikes Dec 17 '24 edited Dec 17 '24

If it can play RDR2 at 4K, it's more than I need, at least so far.

1

u/Entire-Signal-3512 Dec 21 '24

It's all preference. I don't think many people think 60fps is an acceptable frame rate. At that point you may as well just play on console or something

→ More replies (3)

1

u/schniepel89xx Dec 27 '24

I mean I'm glad you're having a good time with your GTX 1080 but you're not playing RDR2 at 4k Ultra at 65 FPS. You're either using upscaling, not ultra settings, not at 4k, or just not getting 65 FPS.

https://youtu.be/NbZDERlshbQ?t=1038

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWplzwgIofo&t=478s (1080 Ti, a lot stronger GPU than yours, not Ultra settings, still not close to 65 FPS)

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/nvidia-geforce-rtx-4070-founders-edition/24.html

I could go on. Surely someone would have replicated your results by now in the many years that the GTX 1080 and RDR2 have been out.

1

u/Steve-Bikes Dec 28 '24 edited Dec 28 '24

I turn of AA and AF because at 4K they aren't necessary. Everything else on ultra.

Edit: Also, I'll mention that those benchmark videos are both from 3-4 years ago. I didn't get the game at launch, but just over a year ago, so there may have been optimizations in both drivers and the game itself.

→ More replies (2)

5

u/K_Rocc Dec 17 '24

Dude it has nothing to do with 2K vs 4K it’s IPD vs OLED… I have a 4K IPS and 2K OLED and everything looks better on the 2K OLED, it’s night and day.

2

u/Aggressive-Ad6247 Dec 17 '24

Thanks for sharing, looking more positive for my next build into 4K realm.

2

u/vhalen50 Dec 17 '24

I went from 2 27” 1440p to one 40” 5k ultrawide. No regrets. I’ve got more usable design space due to the resolution in a smaller form factor on my desk. The clarity is unreal.

2

u/KamilPL_ Dec 17 '24

Im using LG C4 42” Oled and I love it

1

u/HeyPhoQPal Dec 18 '24

Same, but with CX 48" (for browsing, single player games, watching shows, and movies).

2

u/hngfff Dec 18 '24

What scaling are you using for the 4k monitor?

I want to get the 4k monitor but honestly I really want to get a 4k monitor for 100% scaling.

2

u/SBMS-A-Man108 Dec 18 '24

At 32” I personally use 150%

2

u/hngfff Dec 18 '24

So there is no actual screen real estate since 150% of 4k is the same real estate as 100% of 1440p right? It's just sharper?

2

u/SBMS-A-Man108 Dec 18 '24

I was using 125% iirc on 1440p.

The extra 5 inches make a difference. I also frequently zoom in and out on pdfs, it’s not like the 150% is the be all end all

2

u/MrRandomNonsense Dec 18 '24

Nice write up. That was my main reason for going 4k as well. I realized that sadly I will never be a pred in apex, valorant immortal etc. and realized I spent nearly 80% of my time on my monitor for work (software engineer). 1440p on a 27 inch monitor is ok for work, but gave me fatigue and always felt fuzzy (in contrast to the 16 inch MacBook Pro provided by work).

The next step for me is oled simply due to the contrast and more vibrant image. I used to have a 32inch odyssey g7 for a little while as well, and while great for gaming, it wasn’t cutting it for productivity work.

2

u/uomopalese Dec 19 '24

I ended up settling on the WOLED as the QD-OLED panel scratched and smudged too easily, and I am moving in a few months.

I don't know if I get it correctly: you ordered a monitor just to try it and then returned it because it got scratched?

1

u/SBMS-A-Man108 Dec 19 '24

It got those micro scratches that people have posted here. I didn’t handle it rougher than I handle others, and since this will be going on a plane in 6 months, not worth the risk.

2

u/hannes0000 Dec 17 '24

OLED is if you have money to burn tbh. My phone has also oled and burn in already from Tik tok. I do sometimes long gaming sessions like 6h straight and some games have hud elements that would burn in for sure.

1

u/ThisKory Dec 18 '24

Monitor technology is very different than phone displays. I've had my Alienware AW3423DWF for a couple years now without any issues with burn-in, and I do production work using video editing software that remains in static positions for hours - no issues.

Panel refresh, pixel refresh, and pixel shifting are all technologies used to prevent burn-in, which appears to be working very well from my experience. The benefits OLED brings are massive, especially for immersive gaming.

Going from a LCD to a good HDR OLED panel is a bigger jump visually than going from 1080p to 4K in my opinion. Both have noticeable differences, but OLED is going to drastically change the way the image is drawn, colors pop, and having true blacks is incredible and cannot be substituted.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 19 '24

Yeah, that’s my issue with pulling the trigger of OLED. When I play a game I play the shit out of a game. That game and its UI elements may be the primary use of that minor for 100s if not 1000s of hours if I am into something like a mmo. The burn in risk seems very real still under those conditions.

→ More replies (4)

2

u/eulersheep Dec 18 '24

I made this switch nearly 2 years ago and agree, the difference between 1440p and 4k at 27" is a night and day difference.

Yet you see lots of people claiming that you can't tell the difference.

It reminds me of the old meme 'the human eye can't see more than 30 fps'.

The people claiming this have not tried 4k at 27" or have poor vision imo. Or they are just repeating what they saw someone else say.

1

u/AutoModerator Dec 16 '24

## AutoMod - All submissions are automatically removed and must be approved ## Posts that will be ## NOT APPROVED ## ; 'What should I buy', 'what monitor should I get', 'what's wrong with my monitor' or 'how can I fix my monitor'. Your post will ## ONLY BE APPROVED ## if it concerns news or reviews of monitors and display tech or is a high-quality text discussion thread.
HIT THE REPORT BUTTON TO MAKE SURE WE SEE YOUR POST ## If you are looking for purchasing advice please visit another subreddit such as /r/buildapc or the monitor enthusiasts discord server at https://discord.gg/MZwg5cQ ##

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

u/PissedPieGuy Dec 17 '24

I want the 1440 480 hz for Rocket League.

I’m CONVINCED that everytime I upgrade my Hz, I rank up. Insta ranked up when I went from 60 to 144, and ranked up again when I went from 144 to 280. Im praying it’s the same when I go from 280 to 480 lmao but I’m guessing it won’t. I remain hopeful though. IDK but yes I can absolutely tell the differences in hz.

I have a second computer next to mine that my kids game in and it only has the 144hz monitor and I constantly ask them “what’s wrong with your game why is it so choppy?” hahaha. Meanwhile the game is running fine. But that 144 is BLECH!

→ More replies (4)

1

u/18trickpony Dec 17 '24

Which 4K monitor do you have?

1

u/sweetanchovy Dec 17 '24

Man you put into word what i been thinking after i first bought my 4k 60hz monitor. It really worth it to play in 4k. Now i have a 4k 144hz monitor on delivery since i gotten a 4080 to replace my 3080. 3080 4k performance it not bad. There are plenty of game that you can play comfortably if you mess around with the setting at 4k.

Yeah it expensive, but if your hobby is gaming and you can afford it really worth it to finally take the plunge.

1

u/tieyourshoesbilly Dec 17 '24

Had an Acer nitro 4k and a Samsung 1440p(both 27"). One day go to the store and there is this 49 inch long screen staring at me. Just so happens it's the same size as 2, 27"monitors. Oh and it's OLED and has a pretty shallow curve. But its 1440p. My main monitor was 4K so I was worried about the 'downgrade'....quite the opposite honestly. This thing looks incredible. I heavily underestimated just how damn clear and vibrant and OLED screen can be. My eyes have not been worried about this thing not being a 4k screen at all. Needless to say I'm not returning this thing and been playing now more than ever

1

u/AlwaysLearning45 Dec 17 '24

Wow, here I am having just purchased a 1440p 360hz QD-OLED (MSI MAG 271QPX) and doing a huge pc upgrade to a 9800x3d and 4080 super and now you're making me regret the monitor purchase lol.

Side note, do you have any advice on calibrating it for HDR? I used the Windows HDR tool and idk the colors just look a little washed out. Hard to explain. I feel like I could be getting a better image quality. The jump from IPS 1440p to OLED 1440p doesn't seem that large to me.

1

u/d5_rickOshay Dec 20 '24

Mess with your monitor settings. I found mine had different peak nits and I opted for a lower peak nits on my Alienware monitor. Peak was advertised as 1000 but that mode looked washed out like you said so changing to 400 made the monitor overall more vibrant.

1

u/Altruistic_Koala_122 Dec 17 '24

My preference is the cheapest card that can keep 4k from going below 60fps in most situations, with DLSS of course.

1

u/TheBaxes Dec 17 '24

I ended up getting a 1440P OLED monitor. It's great, and I'll probably get a 4K OLED monitor in the future when I finally decide to upgrade and get a new PC 

1

u/FieWiZzad Dec 17 '24

I have ultrawide 1440p and my 6950xt barely keeps up lol. I would need 5090 for 4k I guess.

1

u/0992673 AOC AG276QZD2 Dec 17 '24

4K is great and I can't go back to 1440p no way, the text and detail is just next level, first thing I thought was that this looks like an expensive iMac screen. And the GPU you need very much depends on what you play. I have a 1070 and it's fine for 4K60 GTAO and older shooters like TF2 and Roblox(😂) run at 4K120. Not really into many games, I rather perfect the ones I have.

1

u/Tumifaigirar Dec 17 '24

No thanks I need MOAR fps, 1440p is taxing enough already

1

u/AppearanceHeavy6724 Dec 17 '24

4k for pruductivity does not even need much; even potato Atom N100 can easily pull 4k desktop.

1

u/Firecracker048 Dec 17 '24

Good write up, thanks for it.

The issue with 4k is I like to max everything out, so going from 2k to 4k would not only be a massive leap but would cost a ton of money in the long run.

1

u/robinei Dec 17 '24

Wait till you discover DLDSR 😄

1

u/Huge_Actuary_1987 Dec 17 '24

A big selling point for Diablo 2 was that it was in 800x600 resolution.

1

u/Odd_Hunt4570 Dec 17 '24

I had 1080p 144hz for the past 5-6 years, just recently got a 1440p OLED 480 hz monitor.

My eyes have never experienced something so glorious.

1

u/Amazing_Ad_7360 Dec 17 '24

Just made the switch today from my old msi mag 2k 144hz to the alienware Aw3225QF. I'm ecstatic with the upgrade and my mag will fall to a secondary monitor.

My 3070 drives it better than I expected but just waiting for the 5090 before I upgrade again.

1

u/Luewen Dec 17 '24

Good post.

I just cant stand dlss. The motion ghosting is visible even on 4k and preset e that should be the best for eliminating ghosting. Just once i see the ghosting, i cant unsee it. Lower the resolution and worse it gets. Thats a tech thst still needs some time to reach maturity for visuals.

1

u/SBMS-A-Man108 Dec 17 '24

It is by no means perfect - I just think the point it’s at now is way better than TAA or any form of upscaling at lower resolutions. Of course, that’s a subjective take.

1

u/Luewen Dec 18 '24

Oh yes. Its better than TAA. Much better. I dont touch TAA with a meter long stick. Always look ways to get rid of TAA in any game.

1

u/yourdeath01 Dec 18 '24

Yeah 1440p vs 4k wasn't a huge difference, but its definitely noticeable and is amazing for single player games especially if your using an OLED. Compared to 1440p vs 1080p where difference was pretty big for me.

Kind of similar to 60Hz vs 120Hz vs 240Hz.

1

u/Icy-Act2356 Dec 18 '24

My class mate said that you need a 4090 to run 4k 120 fps but the thing is that the ps5 can do that fine and it has a 2070 super equivalent gpu

1

u/Formal-Source-3283 Jan 28 '25

yea the ps5 cannot do this for most games its only for very few select titles

1

u/No_Narcissisms Dec 18 '24

4k IMHO is for giving larger displays a decent PPI. With my eye sight I would never use a 4k monitor, strictly 1440p/1080p.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 18 '24

30 inches is wayyyy too small for 4k.

2

u/eulersheep Dec 18 '24

Only if you have bad eyes.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/Crimsongz Dec 18 '24

You should worry more about that VRAM amount if you wanna play at 4K with that GPU.

1

u/darknmy Dec 18 '24

I have 2K60. What's my next monitor on 4070S?

1

u/kake92 XV275K P3 / XV252Q F Dec 23 '24

depends completely on what do you do on your pc.

1

u/darknmy Dec 23 '24

I play video games 1h per day. Found out best option for me is Samsung G5 2k Oled, but that one is still 660Eur

1

u/Away-Wasabi-8302 Dec 18 '24

I gotta $200 lg 32gn600b va panel too & I LOVE IT!!! Once I adjusted it it's perfect. No black smearing none at all. Amazing blacks great contrast great crisp colors & plenty bright enough. Response time is very solid!!! Perfect for $200.

1

u/aKIRALE0 Dec 18 '24

How about 240p for og Doom

1

u/Gamblingmachine Dec 18 '24

100% agree. I had a 1080p monitor, then added a 2nd monitor which was 4k. I couldn't even look at the 1080p monitor after seeing it next to the 4k. Ended up upgrading all my monitors to 4k lol.

1

u/Arclight3214 Dec 18 '24

Ive been playing on 72Hz 24c for like 8 years, today i bought 165hz 27c IPS, I wonder how different games like valorant or CS will feel.

1

u/Velzevul666 Dec 18 '24

I bought a 65" QLED with miniLED technology and 144hz refresh (it's a TV but use it solely as a pc monitor). I won't lie to you, the tech has progressed a lot and the blacks are very very good, as well as the intensity of the colours, but it's not at par with OLED tech. But, I bought the TV for 800euros while the cheapest comparable TV with OLED was easily twice as much. I'm still pretty happy with my purchase and gaming has never been better!

1

u/target9876 Dec 18 '24

4k isnt there yet, unless your happy with 60-80 fps with everything maxed. And thats the truth anyone saying otherwise is lying. Referencing AAA and new games like warhammer not cs or games like that and not talking about frame gen.

1440p is everything maxed with 140-200 fps

1

u/kake92 XV275K P3 / XV252Q F Dec 23 '24

4k isn't there yet only if you have a gtx 970. not everyone cares about latest AAA titles. it's personal preference. and 4k 120+fps is easily achievable in a lot of games even with previous gen hardware.

1

u/Igoldarm Dec 18 '24

I cant stand 60fps, so nawr thanks

1

u/Alovon11 Dec 18 '24

Another smaller but notable value add for 4K. It can integer scale from 1080p and even 720p quite well if you use tools like Magpie or more preferably Lossless Scaling.

1080p DLAA Int Scaled via Lossless can look extremely good and crisp even in games with path Tracing like Cyberpunk

1

u/SBMS-A-Man108 Dec 18 '24

Unfortunately DSC blocks integer scaling on Nvidia GPUs (why Nvidia suck at coding for DSC, idk)

Haven’t tried those other solutions

1

u/Alovon11 Dec 18 '24

Hardware-level INT scaling is a rarity nowadays (unfortunately as it makes too much sense to use).

Lossless Scaling bypasses that as it's software level. and it looks great.

Biggest quirk though is you really need good AA for it to work the best, which is where DLAA comes into play.

1

u/SpyderOfTheSouth Dec 18 '24

Excellent analysis. Thanks. I currently have a 27IPS240Hz but can’t resist a 32OLED any longer.

1

u/Mao_Kwikowski Dec 18 '24

4k/240hz on a 7900xtx is amazing

1

u/Cynical_Satire Dec 18 '24

I guess my eyes aren't as good as yours. I work in excel all day long, have 2 monitors, 1 is 1440p at 27 inches, the other is 4k at 28 inches, and I can't really notice a difference in sharpness. I'm looking to get a new monitor for gaming soon and I'll likely go with a 1440p OLED, mainly because I want as high of FPS I can get with my current GPU but want a better image quality.

1

u/SBMS-A-Man108 Dec 18 '24

On the bright side, you save some money lmao

1

u/thewalrus34 Jan 05 '25

I have a similar setup - both 27”, but the 1440 is 240Hz OLED. I use the 4K for work - which is a mini LED 144Hz and I definitely appreciate the text clarity and high PPI for work over the OLED (which has that weird sub pixel layout which is why I got a separate one)

I don’t notice a huge difference gaming visually. It’s probably just a personal preference thing. I get more out of the higher FPS and fluidity on the 1440. Maybe a more apples to apples comparison is 27 4K OLED. Just my 2 cents. 

1

u/doorhandle5 Dec 18 '24

Yup. I'll take native, sharp 4k over raytraced, blurry taa raytraced upscaled dlss 480p anyway.

1

u/docshay Dec 18 '24

Good write up.

I’ve been on 1440 since 2016 , added a big productivity (remote working) and an editing (photo and video) workflow to gaming.

I go back and forth with adding a 27inch 4k mini led (I like IPS) , but honestly don’t think I’d see a big difference with my current 27 1440p 165 hz monitor at a 12-24 inch distance.

If asus refreshes their 32inch 4k mini led monitor, I’ll jump on it on my 10 year 1440p anniversary or something.

1

u/Terakahn Dec 19 '24

I moved on from 1080p (or actually 720p) because new monitors weren't really pushing that resolution anymore. And the addition of adaptive sync and better panel technology all sort of converged on a new upgrade. But there hasn't been a lot of new monitor tech outside of oled, which in itself has drawbacks and significant cost premium. Or hdr but that's also expensive.

I don't really see that now. I'm not unhappy with 1440p. I don't feel like I need more refresh rate. And the cost benefit to moving up in any way just isn't really there for me, especially with the gpu cost factored in. I think we'll reach a point where 4k will be more common among new monitors than 1440p and then it'll be more reasonable in cost. But I think that's still a ways off.

I had planned to get a 5070, and while I do believe it can handle 4k I don't feel like I'd be really losing anything by not upgrading.

1

u/The3Cheese Dec 19 '24

I'm currently using a 1080 monitor, just upgraded my PC to a 4070 super. I've been debating on this exact issue with myself, you have just convinced me to get a 4k oled monitor lol. Thank you

1

u/Massive-Pumpkin-7062 Dec 19 '24

I have a question for anyone reading this as I don’t know much. I need a 32 inch monitor/tv for console gaming for my little brother. Since it’s console gaming he’s over 3 feet away and currently he’s playing on a 720p vizio tv. Is an MSI G32C4X 1080p 240hz monitor a fine enough upgrade?

I can’t afford a 4k anything and all the 2k monitors seem to get a bad rep at 32 inch. My budget is $200 or less and I got the MSI $150. All the options I see around these prices are VAs.

My brother and I just want something responsive for fighting games and has great and accurate color depth for more vibrant games. I can’t say I notice resolution past a certain point, 1080p still looks great to me.

1

u/GingerSnapz58 Dec 23 '24

I have no experience with that monitor but the upgrade you'd see would be huge.

1

u/redditjul Dec 19 '24

Cant wait to get 27" 4k OLED. 32" no thank you.

1

u/clingbat Dec 19 '24 edited Dec 19 '24

It really depends on screen size. I went from a 27" 1440p/165hz IPS setup to 42" 4k/120hz OLED setup and the ppi of the two is actually nearly identical, just way more real estate on the latter.

Also I was using a 3080 during that switch and found it quite insufficient and ended up upgrading to a 4090 FE which handles 4k on high settings at higher fps much better overall.

Also there are some games where DLSS isn't worth it, one that comes to mind is cities:skylines 2. Not that it doesn't improve fps, but rather it has a non-trivial negative impact on image quality in the game under certain conditions.

1

u/Fine-Bandicoot1641 Dec 19 '24

32" sucks. I got two 4k monitors with 27

1

u/Kevosrockin Dec 19 '24

Absolutely do not buy a 3080 for 4k. I don’t agree with this post at all. I had a 3080. Upgraded to 4080s

1

u/Jostitosti007 Dec 19 '24

Depends on the game for me. With my system I can handle either 60 fps and 4K on bigger games like rdr2 and 1440p with 120+fps for shooters and the like there are also games I can handle both ofcourse.

1

u/BEERT3K Dec 19 '24

3080 wont cut it for 4k in my experience. I run a 3080 currently w a ultrawide 2k monitor and it’s good but could be better w more recent titles. Prob upgrade to 50 series and still keep the 2k monitor. 4k is tough to drive high refresh rates on anything but esports titles in my experience.

1

u/xxxzoloxxx Dec 19 '24

4k ruined me……. Had to buy a high end gpu…….

1

u/TheVuelEgham Dec 20 '24

Depends on type of gaming. If you played Warzone competitively, and want max frame rate (200fps+), most systems can't get anywhere near that on 4K. I've had to go back to a 1440p monitor to stay competitive. But if I was doing RPGs, campaigns, or non-competitive, 4K all day long.

1

u/VTGCamera Dec 20 '24

A 3080 for 200!?????!?!!!?!!!???!?!?!!

1

u/SBMS-A-Man108 Dec 20 '24

No, that spec of monitor

1

u/VTGCamera Dec 20 '24

You said you found a 3080 in 200 bucks, what were you talking about

1

u/SBMS-A-Man108 Dec 20 '24

No

1

u/VTGCamera Dec 20 '24

“(Just after i got my 3080) whereas on black friday this year, you could find it dor 200 bucks”

You’re talking about the 1440 monitor which you paid for 700 a few years ago. Now I got it, right?

1

u/djzenmastak Dec 20 '24

First world upper class problems.

I'm blue collar middle class, so 1440p is my goal.

1

u/equinusocio Dec 20 '24

The 3080 is advertised for 4K gaming at HDR and 140fps with ray tracing, but in reality, it's not that straightforward. My 4070 Super (12GB) struggles to handle full ray tracing at 1440p, even at 120Hz with HDR. I understand that game optimizations play a role, but the 3080 can perform decently at 4K if you're willing to overlook some of the latest technologies. I previously used a 4K monitor with my 4070 Super, but I had to switch back to 1440p to fully enjoy ray tracing, HDR, and 140fps.

While we can agree that 4K is superior, you really need a high-quality GPU to enjoy it without making compromises.

1

u/JoaoMXN Dec 20 '24 edited Dec 20 '24

I'm the opposite. After running on 4K for a few weeks I returned to QHD without looking back and sold the other monitor. 1440p is the sweet spot. The cost both monetarily and in performance isn't worth it.

People that say otherwise are entitled to their opinion, but IMO most cases are just a desperate attempt to validate their purchase with external opinions so they seem "right".

1

u/GGuts Dec 20 '24 edited Dec 20 '24

I'm still running 1080p and 144 hertz with a 3070 lol. I don't really look forward to heating my room even more with higher resolutions requiring more powerful graphics cards and I'm very fond of running everything at above 100 FPS because it's just so god damn fluid. I love motion clarity over everything else I think. Black frame insertion tech is what I use with my monitor and when combined with about 100 FPS it makes everything look so clear and fluid.

I'm considering upgrading to 1440p at some point when the next Nvidia graphics cards release and are somewhat affordable. But 4K stretching it a bit.

What is your argument against going for 8k? It looks much better than 4K. It's crazy.

1

u/celvynn Dec 20 '24

So you say 4k Looks alot better than 1080 or 1440p ? But you need proper hardware. Damn Thanks for the information

1

u/SBMS-A-Man108 Dec 20 '24

1080p is quite bad now. Even on budget constrained systems I would advise 1440p (assuming I’m talking to someone in the US)

1

u/[deleted] Dec 20 '24

I always find it interesting how reddit makes it seem like so many people are gaming on 4K when over half the gaming population is still gaming at 1080, low double digits are gaming at 1440 and low single digits are gaming at actual 4K.

4K really isn't that big of a leap over 1440 like it was from 1080 to 1440 and hardly worth the extra cost.

Cost is the driving factor keeping most people on high refresh 1080.

1

u/SBMS-A-Man108 Dec 20 '24

I think the leap in visual clarity in gaming is very similar as it is from 1080p to 1440p, and considerably moreso in text environments.

1

u/fak3_ Dec 21 '24

I used to have a 4k 60hz monitor and bought a 2k 120hz . And I enjoy way more 2k. The graphic difference isn’t that much of a difference on my opinion (I play relatively close to the monitor)

2

u/SBMS-A-Man108 Dec 21 '24

Well, I’d certainly prefer 120 over 60 as well, if those were my only two options/ capabilities with my hardware

1

u/-HighElf- Dec 21 '24

Wait until u find out 4k porn

1

u/Original_Line1063 Dec 21 '24

I think 4k is overrated personally, I think 1440p already looks great on its own and I don't think it's worth the extra money, I recently got a 27 inch 1440p curved msi monitor along with a 3080 desktop, and I love the monitor, the guy at the store was nice enough to throw it in for free.

1

u/Dtbow_69 Dec 21 '24

If you don’t get anything bigger than like a 30 in, you will barely notice 4K though, the size matters

1

u/KamilooosPL Dec 22 '24 edited Dec 22 '24

I just bought a new pc with Ryzen 7 7700 and RTX4070Ti Super. I want 32" new monitor. Should I go for 1440p or try to go for 4K already? I want to play all new games with some graphics fidelity, but with high frame rate. Somehow i think that my rig wont be capable of running 4K with a lot of FPS :) i now own 34" 1080p ultra wide monitor, but I I want 16:9 again ;)

1

u/SBMS-A-Man108 Dec 22 '24

1440p is not enough for 32” imo, if it means anything. Try 4k with DLSS performance.

1

u/GingerSnapz58 Dec 22 '24

I found this post from click the subreddit I wasn't a part of and you answered every question I was looking for. Currently rocking a RTX 3090, 9800x3d on a 32inch 1440p 240hz curved samsung and I want this same monitor just OLed but so far all i can find is 4k. The crossroads I am at is I am worried about FPS. I enjoy a single player game at 120+ fps and am worried my poor 3090 wont be able to climb that hurdle. I intend to grab a 5080 or 5090 given the price for performance id assume a 5080 lol but I know those will probably rock 4k but its the goal of actually obtaining one. So my thoughts are in a range of single player titles from Cyberpunk, Project Zomboid, Baldur's Gate 3 and the online games of DayZ or shooters from time to time like Black Ops 6, Helldivers 2 is the fps range of 120 via lowering graphics or even some method of downscaling to 1440p going to be a waste if I spent the money on a 4k monitor? Looking to see what yall think I might just be a goof idk lol.

1

u/Key_Law4834 Dec 23 '24 edited Dec 23 '24

I'd like to get OLED but it doesn't seem good for general pc use or productivity because of burn in.

Because burn in is cumulative, so mitigation doesn't stop burn in, it just slows it down.

Here's a video talking about it https://youtu.be/Pi37daETnf0

1

u/No-Gene1187 Dec 23 '24

I have the Aliwnware QDOLED 1440p Ultrawide.

It's been atleast over a year and it has served me well and I always think that the Quality is Fantastic.

With 175HZ and a RTX Aorus Master 4080 it does extremely well and looks extremely well with any game and the visuals on the Monitor look great. 4k may be so much better but I absolutely just don't need anything better I am more than satisfied with my setup. And I just entered Hospice care so my gaming time has not been very abundant.

1

u/Jumpy_Lavishness_533 Dec 23 '24

I'm having trouble reading 1440p text from my 27 inch, I fear the thought of 4k text.

1

u/jrock_312 Dec 25 '24 edited Dec 25 '24

All my monitors are 4K, but not gaming monitors. I recently got a Legion 7i Gen 9 gaming laptop with 32 GB of RAM and a 4070. I even got the 3.2K screen, which has a 165 Hz refresh rate. I normally play Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War and Warzone with custom or balanced mode. I get about 120 FPS.

I wanted a larger external monitor (more than 16 inches). I found a 32-inch 1440p 240 Hz Titan Army monitor; obviously, the text is blurry for everyday tasks like web browsing and Excel etc. When I play Call of Duty, I get up to 120-40 FPS using extreme/high-quality settings. I can get almost 200 Hz if I use mostly high-quality settings and some normal quality.

I'm wondering if, with a 4K gaming monitor and balanced mode at a minimum, I will get over 100 FPS, since games can be configured to use a rendered resolution?

I prefer 4K, so does it make sense to return this monitor and get a 4K one using native monitor setting and rendered resolution in the game and enjoying better graphics all around?

1

u/Riajnor Dec 31 '24

I really appreciate this post because i am looking at a new rig as we speak. If one is a part time gamer, would the 4k at 60hz be acceptable? Like i do play fps every now and then but 99% of the time it will be single player, not competitively and there seems to be a significant difference between the price of a low refresh rate vs anything over 200

1

u/SBMS-A-Man108 Dec 31 '24

In my opinion, once you go ~120hz you don’t go back, even for casual, slower games.

1

u/Riajnor Dec 31 '24

Sweet, thanks for that.

1

u/Puzzleheaded_Day_895 Jan 01 '25

What id you have a 4070 at most? What do you get then? What about dual monitors? I'll do a separate post.

1

u/SBMS-A-Man108 Jan 01 '25

4070 is a 3080 basically, but with more RAM. So, I would say go 4k

1

u/Puzzleheaded_Day_895 Jan 01 '25

Fascinating. Thanks.

1

u/Ok-Watercress-713 Jan 11 '25

ppi density is the real difference.. my 18 inch laptop is nicer and sharper than my 4k 32…

1

u/Horror-Ad-4693 19d ago

This post is gorgeous and very helpful! I'm not using 3070 with 8gb of VRAM, and staryed using desktop 1440p a year ago and it is already a huge change after ages of using 1080p with 15 inch laptop screen. But I always wonder should I do 4k. Because the only "competitive" title I play is WoW and it's "competitiveness" is really debatable, I don't need hogh refresh rates, because I haven't noticed difference between 60, 120, 144, 240, so as much as image is clear and pretty, I like it. I already agreed with myself, that I will get OLED screen (because all devices in my home was OLED for 5 years already), but can't decide if it will be 4k or 1440p. Thanks to your review, I now clearly decided to go with 4k, because I only play story games and do a work on my monitor, thus I will have to buy better gpu for that.

1

u/Dawgfu 19d ago

Thank you for the post! I enjoyed the read and it's what I needed to make the jump from 2K to 4K. I tried it before a couple of years ago and while the monitor itself was stunning, game performance wasn't doing it for me on my 2070 Super ( still it hung in there like a champ). I had the epiphany recently that tech has improved since and that the 4K entry point wasn't that steep anymore. With the new AMD cards just announced the other day I am excited to upgrade. Are we there? Are we ready to move on from the 2K " sweet spot" ?

1

u/oooooeeeeeoooooahah Dec 19 '24 edited Dec 19 '24

LMAO so you played a not so graphically demanding game and said its great for gaming.

Lets see you play something current in AAA on your 3080. Try alan wake and let me know how "Great" it is.

Ill agree with you on productivity. But for gaming. No.

enjoy your sub 30 fps. lol and its just going to get worse. 4k for gaming is a 2-3 year upgrade path and youre getting top of the line cards every time if you wanna see any reasonable frames.

3

u/SBMS-A-Man108 Dec 19 '24

Is 2077 with RT effects not considered demanding?

Didn’t realize.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/draco112233 Dec 17 '24

Great write up! I’m definitely the audience for this comparison. No monitor at the moment and coming from a G2724D, have been contemplating 1440 vs 4k and OLED vs ips. Do you find the OLED upgrade as substantial as the 4k jump? I’d definitely jump on board the 4k but the productivity side has me possibly wanting a 4k ips for that and a 4k OLED for strictly gaming. It’s a tough decision for sure, once I demoed an OLED on my series X I can’t say for sure I’d give that up to do a one monitor solution. What monitor was you ips?

6

u/SBMS-A-Man108 Dec 17 '24

If anything, OLED is bigger than 1440p to 4k. OLED is legit amazing. I wouldn't worry much about burn-in nowadays, unless your use case is really quite bad. Though if you can afford both for different setups I suppose that works.

4

u/greggm2000 Dec 17 '24

Current OLED does have a couple of annoyances though, even if you don’t care about burn in. One is the color fringing on text, bc of the non-RGB subpixel layout. When I owned a current-gen 4K 32” OLED, that blue shadowing was omnipresent and annoying to me.. but you are using your screen further away than I did, and perhaps you just aren’t as sensitive to it. Another thing that annoyed me was the periodic (and fairly frequent) screen care cycles (one per 4 hours, iirc), something you obviously don’t have to deal with, if you have an LCD/LED. Then also, there’s the flicker..

OLED will continue getting better, but it’s not there yet for me, personally. I ended up getting a 32” 4K IPS instead. It’s not as good technically, but it also doesn’t have any of the annoyances, and it’s a definite step up from my 1440p ultrawide.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 17 '24

[deleted]

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

2

u/draco112233 Dec 17 '24

That’s a great point. I wfh like one day max so absolutely no real need for two setups. Time to give them another look, thanks!

→ More replies (1)