1280x1024 I can't tell you how many times this aspect ratio has fuxked me. Text going off screen, cutscenes looking terrible. Fov sucking in most games. Really want to buy a 1080p monitor but I should upgrade my 750ti first.
-
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.
1.33% of Steam users play games in 4k
- Thread starter CozMick
- Start date
If I gamed on PC, and I sat at my desk close to the monitor, I'd definitely need 4K.
Cost is the biggest factor as to why this isn't common.
Cost is the biggest factor as to why this isn't common.
User Warned: Platform warring
Article fails to mention how a 100% of Era PC gamers patrolling Xbox One and PS4 Pro threads play their games in 4k 60 fps.
1440p @ 120+ hertz is the sweet spot. Doesn't require a second mortgage in hardware, and it looks amazing.
Considering a 5:4 resolution has bigger gains than wide ones, I wonder if steam is growing with an older/cheaper computer audience or everything outside of 1080p and old laptop resolutions are within margin of error.
People got 4k TVs, want 4k content, and the console companies are more than glad to deliver.
OP
OP
It's an automatic survey, you click next, it gathers the info.
1440p and 4K require much more GPU power then 1080p. 1080p provides good enough image quality at an affordable price for the entire system.
This. I could run game on medium/low at 4k/60 or 4k/30, I prefer 1080/120 or 1440p/60 with max settings though.
Considering that pc usually don't resort to reconstruction techniques and the price for the hardware that can consistently pull 4k at high settings, and the fact that steam population is quite big this is not too bad really
rofl
You do you homie, but my god at least ask for a better monitor for Christmas.
They're overpriced for a good one and to hard to run. I think it'll be another 5 to 8 years before 4k hits 20%. When gpus in the $200 to $250 range can do it and decent monitors are $250 to $300 we'll get there.
A bad monitor is like $500 and a good one is $2000 for only 27 inches it's ridiculous plus a decent GPU that can play at high settings 60fps is around $600 to start. Not gonna have mass adoption anytime soon.
A bad monitor is like $500 and a good one is $2000 for only 27 inches it's ridiculous plus a decent GPU that can play at high settings 60fps is around $600 to start. Not gonna have mass adoption anytime soon.
Nvidia charging crazy amounts for their upcoming 4K 60fps capable card doesn't help. They picked the wrong time to join this ray tracing stuff.
Bruh...
You should be able to find a free monitor that has a better resolution than this from a local business that is upgrading their hardware...
sometimes i play in on 4K on my tv.
4K on PC wont take off like it has with console until 4K/60+ is achievable all the time and when monitors that are 4K/120 are cheaper. I can get a 1440/60 monitor for the same price as a 4K/60 monitor tho
4K on PC wont take off like it has with console until 4K/60+ is achievable all the time and when monitors that are 4K/120 are cheaper. I can get a 1440/60 monitor for the same price as a 4K/60 monitor tho
Cost needs to come down. The moment I can afford a 120hz 4k display with hdr, gsync, and a corresponding card, I'm all in on 4k. Until then I'm happy with 2k and gsync.
I almost exclusively play PC on my 4k TV now, though obviously with a GTX 1070 that's not native on new high end titles ha. Was a bit of a pain to hack in custom resolutions between 1080p and 4k, was surprised NVidia didn't come with a bunch of those as standard.
It's a treat for older titles and emulation, thankfully the number of games that don't support 4k in my Steam library is vastly outnumbered by those that do. One irritating thing though is you often have to right click>properties>Compatibility>Change High DPI>Override DPI on many game exes if you have desktop Zoom set to 200%.
It's a treat for older titles and emulation, thankfully the number of games that don't support 4k in my Steam library is vastly outnumbered by those that do. One irritating thing though is you often have to right click>properties>Compatibility>Change High DPI>Override DPI on many game exes if you have desktop Zoom set to 200%.
This is slightly misleading because a lot of people are using multi monitor setups and the steam survey only asks about the primary monitor, which in most cases are 1080p/1440p screens.
In all honesty I'm totally cool with like 1440p. 4k would be nice, but I really don't think it would add too much to my experience. I'd rather invest in something like G-Sync.
As someone who's going to get a 2080ti/i9-9900k I'll be playing on a 1440p/144hz monitor. 4K simply isn't appealing to me without being able to max out games in all their glory while maintaining at least 90fps.
Have you seen what 2080 cards cost in most countries? It's around 2000. A good amount of people are not going to pay that for a graphics card alone. To say nothing else of any CPU, mother board etc that may need updating and cost money to be replaced.
I just bought a 1440p monitor to upgrade from 1080p lol. But it is 144 Hz and has Gsync so I'm really much more excited to try going beyond 60 FPS than to go higher resolution. Hopefully my 1070 can handle that.
Besides, I barely notice the difference between 720p and 1080p anyway...
Besides, I barely notice the difference between 720p and 1080p anyway...
PC players like to prioritize framerates and refresh rates over resolution, I feel, and vast majority of PC users don't seem to use top-end components -- I think it constantly comes back that hardware configurations tend to overwhelmingly be in the low-to-mid-range, and those users are well aware that pushing a 4K output isn't plausible if performance is a priority.
They're nearly tied, with a slight edge for UW. 2560x1080 and 3440x1440 together are 1.37% of the market.
My desk is already crowded with my 1080p monitor, a 1024p 4:3 monitor and my cintiq. Fuck that 27" mess. I'd like HDR, but it's locked behind unnecessary premiums
Not even close, especially since they still sell TVs that max out at 720p, and they almost certainly sell better than the bulk of 4K TVs due to cost and other factors. Even now, non-4K TVs are still pretty plentiful in stores (can you even get 4K TV's below like 40 inches?), and a lot of people will get a new TV just for functionality's sake, especially with the lack of accessible 4K content; Netflix/Amazon only really have their original programs in 4K (it's a single-digit number of other things they have in 4K) and you need an internet connection too beefy for most people outside of cities, TV providers that have it at all will only have it for sports and might not even hit 1080p for anything else, and owning physical media had dropped massively in popularity since the height of DVD.
It's a bit different for PC since there's the 1440p middle-ground there, but in the TV space it's a bit weird because it's a direct jump from 1080p to 4K (with multiple dynamic range options), while when HD was picking up you could sort-of meet halfway by getting a 720p set, which was still a significant step up from 480p. But costs get out of hand in a hurry with PC monitors, a solid 1080p monitor can be just a little over a hundred bucks while you're looking at $300+ for 1440p/G-or-freesync (and this gets even more ridiculous for higher resolutions) and that might be money better spent on a PC upgrade of some sort.
That is my first thought. There are people hooking up av cables to their brand new 60 inch tvs
There are more 1080p options than 4k on stores... if you look at cheaper options then 1080p are the only options.
I can guess even 720p TVs sells more than 4k TVs.
