Saw someone post something similar elsewhere. Some folks just need to get their eyes checked 🤓
-
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.
Maybe it's just me, but going over 1080p doesn't seem worth it.
- Thread starter Lant_War
- Start date
Saw someone post something similar elsewhere. Some folks just need to get their eyes checked 🤓
I'd much rather have 60fps than 4k.
1080p vs 4K == negligible difference in the experience.
30fps vs 60fps == the difference between me buying a game or not.
1080p vs 4K == negligible difference in the experience.
30fps vs 60fps == the difference between me buying a game or not.
... Because 4K was (unfortunately for 3D games) rushed out to market to satisfy demands in other media areas, which was what the post he was replying to was about.
Before we reached 1080p, the low res was noticable even when gaming on a desk sitting closeby to the monitor.
I really feel like 1080p is a sweet spot, anything above that is too much of a power sink
I really feel like 1080p is a sweet spot, anything above that is too much of a power sink
For TVs of 50-70" 4K is certainly an improvement over 1080p but this is close to how big I'd want a TV to be in my home.
For PC monitors I'm not sure as there's not a lot of monitors with proper combination of size and 4K just yet. It may be that 27" 1440p and widescreen analogues is enough for now or maybe not.
For PC monitors I'm not sure as there's not a lot of monitors with proper combination of size and 4K just yet. It may be that 27" 1440p and widescreen analogues is enough for now or maybe not.
Yeah it's always amazing to see people go wild about numbers they always want to see go higher because "why not", but then need experts with specifically developed tools to tell them what those numbers are exactly in the end.
I dunno there's something awfully wrong with this. It's like having a 300hp car and asking for a 500hp car when you're still limited to ~85 mph anyway (in most countries, that's around the max allowed speed limit, like 130km/h here in France). It just reeks of entitlement "I just want more" when you just can't freakin' tell by yourself what you have unless an expert takes some carefully measured values to tell you what they actually are.
Nothing to do with it being rushed. They wanted to introduce a mid gen refresh and decided that 4K would be easier to sell than slightly better looking 1080p games.
So now people entitled for wanting a 4K output on a 4K TV?
YOU can't tell the difference between 720p and 1080p doesn't mean other people can't.
I have bad eyes and probably need glasses and even I can tell that 1080p games on 4k TV looks like shit.
When most of them can't tell the difference in the first place? Yes.
Heck, I'm sure many people play 4K content on a 4K TVs using a 1080p resolution-configured player lol
And this is the problem with discussing this topic.
Anyone who has a 1440p monitor will tell you that it's a lot more than just "slightly better 1080p". The IQ bump is fairly significant and the resource requirement is way lower. If the industry hadn't forced 4K through early - and yes, they absolutely did force it early based on how hard it still is to get things to run well on PC at 4K - we would all be having a pretty great experience with 2K, even on current gen consoles in a lot of cases.
That's funny.
At work we're constantly shuffling between various displays/computers and they're ALWAYS at the wrong resolution. And I see it. Because I'm one of those socially-inept pixel counters. And when I point it, most people genuinely don't see it. You can point it precisely "look here, it's interpolating on a 4x4 pixel basis" and people just don't fucking see it (and people who see it mostly just don't care). And fuck me, we work on a business where among other things we do quite a bit of image processing 🤷♀️
But nice try.
I sit here personnaly.
Why ? Because 1440p144fps.
If I have enough power, I can even downsample.
Aiming for native res is important. And a 4k target doesn't guarantee it. 1800p on 4k is upscaling. 1800p on 1440p is downscaling. I take the latter especially if I can get a good framerate on top of that.
This is such a stupid analogy, and that's impressive as car analogies are usually terrible to begin with. Do you know what acceleration is, and how horsepower can affect it?
Seeing how ray-tracing is becoming an actual thing, games will render at 1440p at most and then upscale through reconstruction techniques to 4K/8K. It's the only way.
Rendering at native resolution at 4K is such a waste of resources imo. DLSS and similar technologies are the way to go.
Rendering at native resolution at 4K is such a waste of resources imo. DLSS and similar technologies are the way to go.
Dlss looks blurry in 95% of games.
Real 4k is noticeably more crisper.
Ok, but how are you going to have games rendering at 4K at playable framerates with all the new rays that people are asking for on next-gen consoles? The more pixels you render, the more rays you need, and that tanks performance.
You are right about the DLSS thing, most that are out there look blurry, but the latest DLSS games look very good at 4K DLSS.
I have been at 1080p on my Panasonic plasma and a base PS4 all generation and it's been great although I've never seen a game at 4K with my own eyes.I will get a new 4K TV next gen for PS5 though as my TV is coming towards the end of it's life cycle anyway.
I think I am being display bottlenecked. I am playing several games at 4k on a 1080p screen with AMD VSR and while they look sharper it's not a night and day difference. 32 inch TV used as a monitor BTW. Distance 3 to 6 ft. But it's always great to have more power to spare, games will become more demanding anyway.
I'd say you're definitely display limited, but if you're happy with it then that's all that really matters. Supersampling will at least heavily reduce aliasing and some other annoying artefacts, even if it's not going to look as sharp as a native 4k image.
Some games won't look very sharp generally anyway. Doom 2016 for example when using TSSAA will always look a touch soft, and even when I supersample from 5k down to my 1440p monitor it still looks this way. Although I can disable all AA and just use the 5k downsample as a substitute for AA (effectively this is 4x supersampling) and it does look a fair bit sharper, while also looking similarly "clean" as a 1440p TSSAA image.
If going over 1080p isn't worth it don't put 1440p in the same poll. I refuse to participate.
Going over 1080 is worth it which is why I'm at 1440p but I don't care about going to 4K right now.
Going over 1080 is worth it which is why I'm at 1440p but I don't care about going to 4K right now.
You are right.
But a lot of people like me doesn't give a fuck about rtx and we hope that devs are gonna forget that stuff to concentrare on raw graphics and real 4k.
Playing games at 120+ fps looks better than 4k.
They also play better, but to me they look better visually because you can see all the details of the image even in motion
Why the hell would you not be interested in making 4K more efficient to achieve? Go and look at the Youngblood Digital Foundry breakdown, DLSS has come a long way.
'Raw graphics and real 4k', honestly.
So...lighting is not part of "raw graphics"? can you define "raw graphics"?
Computer Graphics are a composit of many things, inlcuding but not entirely:
- Model resolutions (how many poligons)
- texture resolutions
- draw distance (how far away can stuf be rendered)
- texture blending
- render resolution
- arguably time resolution (FPS)
- lighting :
- local ilumination (flat, phong,...)
- global ilumination(path tracing, ambient oclusion, radiosity,...)
- ...
Time Resolution is a special case.
In prerendered animation it would be irrelevant, since the media is consumed AFTER it is generated in its entirety.
They could have made every pixar movie in 1000 fps if they wanted. (and there had been a market).
Since games are interactive and instant, time resolution is a factor in game development.
With all of these aboth the questin is, where to find the balance. What are the aspects you see and feel the most.
If a game with 2x the resolution looks a bit better, but with 2x the frames feels way better to play, it is usually better to take the second route (Fast action games, FPS, VR games,...)
If the gameplay is slow enough, (round based jrpgs, visual novels,most rts,...), then the increase in resolution can have a higher effect then increase in framerate.
Since the medium had advertised itself for decades with static images (till the early ps3 era), framerate was not something that you could use for advertisement, and so resolution was prioritized.
with video previews, youtube 60fps, etc things have changed.
There are enough games where ULTRA HIGH settings tank the framerate, since thy are so demanding, but lowering it just one step lets you play with 60fps, and since the gameplay is usually not stillframe after stillframe, you dont even see the difference. These are the "RAW GRAPHICS" that eat up a lot but dont look that much better. Its called "diminishing returns". Shure, we are not there where there is "no return", but it is not caled "no returns", but "diminishing", they get proportionaly smaller, and with resolution, we start to feel it. With framerate, i would say it starts at 60, where most people would probably "see" 120 fps, but would prefere 4k over 120 fps.
With the other aspects of graphics, its the same. See reflections, ambient oclusion, real time shadows, real time clouds, etc. All of these are stoff that you could turn on and of, and a good sice of people would not realize it, since they are focused on the game.
A lot of improvements i can see being obvious are better animations, but curiously, these are less bound by the hardware for now, and more a problem of the production pipeline and that it is hard to create good animations and good animation systems.
My preferences, when we are talking about next gen:
Depending of the game
60@1440 as a general rule
60@4k for simpler looking games
30@4k with a lot of graphics (jrpgs, slow games, Sony/Micrososft big money games)
30@1440 with ALL THE GRAPHICS (raytracing, etc) (for ambitious graphics that cant keep 4k)
For most 2d indies:
60-120@4k, since i dont see a reason why 2d indy games would not hit that target on the new consoles.
120@1440 for VR?
Last edited:
i'm just a guy who doesn't care much for nicer shadows and reflection at the cost of other stuff that for me is more important.
yeah raw graphic was the wrong choice of words, my bad.
i'm not saying that dlss can't improve but i only used in 2-3 games and the results was pretty bad (the last one is mhw).
DLSS implementations are getting so good now, they rival Native 4K and IMO looking at comparisons of Youngblood id say somehow they have managed to get AI to make less than 4K DLSS look better than actual 4K.
would you mind defining what you would prefere?
im just curious.
even in round based games? with slow movement? visual novels? menu based games?
to be honest, menus navigation between 30 and 60 fps is not that different.
2K is 1080p. I think you mean 1440p. I think we will see more dynamic resolution systems but I do hope that 1440p is the minimum for everything but fast paced shooters.
I am also perfectly fine with 1080p, any current-gen game looks ridiculously good to me on my laptop or even my 24" screen on xbox one.
At this point, it depends wholly on the size of your monitor and how far you are from it. I believe up to 24" 1080p should be the sweet spot, assuming you are from a desktop distance, and any resolution above that is causing diminishing returns.
Nonetheless, it is only a matter of time before larger screens become more affordable and become the new standard. Many people already have 27" or above that, and I think that 1080p ain't gonna cut it.
I think this is an ok-ish guide about viewing distance and resolution, where they explain the notion of "pixels per angle", which makes a lot of sense to me:
At this point, it depends wholly on the size of your monitor and how far you are from it. I believe up to 24" 1080p should be the sweet spot, assuming you are from a desktop distance, and any resolution above that is causing diminishing returns.
Nonetheless, it is only a matter of time before larger screens become more affordable and become the new standard. Many people already have 27" or above that, and I think that 1080p ain't gonna cut it.
I think this is an ok-ish guide about viewing distance and resolution, where they explain the notion of "pixels per angle", which makes a lot of sense to me:
Well, my switch is 1080 on a 4k 27" monitor.
It can look a bit soft, but to be honest... for nintendo graphics this is pretty decent. 1440 woul be the resolution where it would be hard for me to see the difference, and even if we stay at 1080, with a good upscaler i would be okay with 1080.
To be honest, i want nintendo to stay at a internal resolution of 1080 and use a good upscaler, but bump up the draw distance and rest. (mostly to have more stuff on screen in the next zelda game, and a higher draw distance)