Are you gaming in 4K?

[Vayra86]

Pretty much everything @Vayra86 said. Especially though, there is zero reason to turn down AF, as it is nearly no hit on your resources and actually noticeable without it. AA is a hit, and turning it down is good, although some of the newer forms have vastly improved upon it for less performance hit than normal SMAA.

Recently Im seeing more and more games use TSSAA (Temporal Super Sampling) which is basically another form of DSR, disguised as AA. WIth a sharpening pass on top, the results can be pretty good and the performance hit is on SMAA levels, but the jaggies are almost entirely gone. The only drawback is sharpen artifacts, but those are far less noticeable if you tone the sharpen down to ~25-35%. Most games offer a slider.

 

[Keullo-e]

Using my old monitor because Shadow of the Tomb Raider and games of that caliber can't run at 60 fps on ultra settings on 1440p with a GTX 1080. Heck, it does't do 60 fps on a 1920 x 1080 with everything set to max. I'll wait till i get my 2080ti to break out the 1440p monitor. 4k is still a good 3 or 4 graphic card cycles in the future for me.

And I was first playing with maxed out with my good ol' GTX 980.

Dropped to medium and had much smoother framerate.

 

[User !]

What really matters is there isn't a good 4k monitor for gamers. TN 4k is cheap but with terrible picture quality.IPS 4k is a little bit higher than TN but still acceptable.However,the extra lights always disturb me from the edges of most IPS monitors.While you are playing horrible games,like RE7,the low approximate 1:1000 contrast ratio and light leakages are irritating you.The OLED monitors may be the best choice in the future with reasonable price and various types.Oh,I hardly think of VA panels .It seems that VA has a good performance in light leakages and contrast ratio,but with low visual angle which is a serious weakness to large-size monitors.Probably the response speed of VA is lower than IPS and you can see shadows of motion objects when using VA.Is that right? Can any VA users give me an answer?

 

[lexluthermiester]

Of all things I would never touch AF or shadows to be fair... AF is not at all costly (that was a thing 15 years ago... not now)

Especially though, there is zero reason to turn down AF, as it is nearly no hit on your resources and actually noticeable without it.

Actually, that's not true. With more and more games rendering textures in very high res, having AF on max with a UHD display can lead to memory and bandwidth saturation, reducing performance. Additionally, the visible difference between AF 4x and AF 8x is noticeable, but the next step up to 16x not so much. And there is absolutely no need for AA in UHD as the pixel "laddering" effect is so minimal as to be almost unviewable at that resolution.

shadows can make or break scenes in terms of immersion.

True but at the cost of performance. Most shadowing methods used in games just don't offer enough effect to justify the performance hit.

At the end of the day, silky smooth framerates are more important than eye-candy FX, to me anyway.

 

[rtwjunkie]

At the end of the day, silky smooth framerates are more important than eye-candy FX, to me anyway.

To each his own!

For me, I want to see everything fully, exactly as the game studio designed it, whether it be a pixelated side scroller or AC Origins. They put in the work for whatever level of graphics, it’s only fair to them to enjoy their work (as long as the gameplay is fun).

I only need 50-60fps anyway, and don’t understand the people that claim calibrated eyes, although I do notice below 50.

BTW, those games that show you the additional VRAM hit for every option, you’ll find that AF16 literally is only a few mb of VRAM.

 

[lexluthermiester]

For me, I want to see everything fully, exactly as the game studio designed it, whether it be a pixelated side scroller or AC Origins. They put in the work for whatever level of graphics, it’s only fair to them to enjoy their work (as long as the gameplay is fun).

While that perspective has merit, I personally prefer to customize things to suit my tastes and needs.

I only need 50-60fps anyway, and don’t understand the people that claim calibrated eyes, although I do notice below 50.

The difference between 30 and 60 fps is dramatic, and the difference between 60 and 120 while lesser is still a very stark contrast. I can play a game at 60, but have grown accustom to 120 and prefer it. Even back in the CRT days, I would sooner play at a lower res(1024x768) and higher detail at 120hz than play at higher res(1600x1200) and lower detail at 60hz. It's all about what works for each individual gamer. Not everyone has the same tastes and preferences.

BTW, those games that show you the additional VRAM hit for every option, you’ll find that AF16 literally is only a few mb of VRAM.

I've conducted similar tests myself using external utilities that measure VRAM usage. The difference would surprise you. Try it yourself and monitor VRAM usage with different setting levels.

 

[StrayKAT]

To each his own!

For me, I want to see everything fully, exactly as the game studio designed it, whether it be a pixelated side scroller or AC Origins. They put in the work for whatever level of graphics, it’s only fair to them to enjoy their work (as long as the gameplay is fun).

I only need 50-60fps anyway, and don’t understand the people that claim calibrated eyes, although I do notice below 50.

BTW, those games that show you the additional VRAM hit for every option, you’ll find that AF16 literally is only a few mb of VRAM.

In the same boat here.

If I drop below 50, I'll just got 2k or 1080p. But I tend to do well getting 60fps on High-ish settings/4k.

 

[hotrippr]

I want to, but cant do it on my gtx card. I game from the couch with my PC next to my 4k hdr tv. Wont ever be going back to a desk. For now settling for 1080p until next gen. Don't see the myself buying last gen which was released years ago, nor paying for this current gen with meager rast gain

 

[robal]

I game on the 1080p projector.
It's sad that input lag is still not on most manufacturers' agenda.
Long story short: It's too early to game on 4k projector. Even the most expensive ones don't go below 50ms atm.

 

[Vayra86]

I game on the 1080p projector.
It's sad that input lag is still not on most manufacturers' agenda.
Long story short: It's too early to game on 4k projector. Even the most expensive ones don't go below 50ms atm.

Projectors were never 'built' for gaming and I really don't expect them to ever improve much in terms of input lag.

 

[xorbe]

As soon as TVs got thin and light weight, "big enough", and relatively cheap, I dumped my projector setup. Smaller, but daytime black levels.

 

[Salty_sandwich]

About 1 1/2 years ago I bought an LG 43UH620 4k HDR Pro (8bit+FARC) TV on sale for £350 in PC mode TV can go from 800x600 all the way to 4096x2160 albeit max of 60hz, has game mode and HDR game mode,

my little system can play some games at 4k like diablo 3 forza 6, and quit a lot of older games which I have started to replay.
I have a 4k TV because its a cheap option to a 4k monitor and I know its budget way of getting 4K although i'm fine with that, looks good to my eyes I guess that's what counts.

 

[WikiFM]

Would be a good idea that the next poll be if you play above 60 Hz or not @W1zzard, I believe most people don't have 60+ Hz monitors or TV's, so nowadays there is not need to upgrade your CPU if you don't play above 60 Hz right?

 

[StrayKAT]

About 1 1/2 years ago I bought an LG 43UH620 4k HDR Pro (8bit+FARC) TV on sale for £350 in PC mode TV can go from 800x600 all the way to 4096x2160 albeit max of 60hz, has game mode and HDR game mode,

my little system can play some games at 4k like diablo 3 forza 6, and quit a lot of older games which I have started to replay.
I have a 4k TV because its a cheap option to a 4k monitor and I know its budget way of getting 4K although i'm fine with that, looks good to my eyes I guess that's what counts.

Exactly. Only your eyes matter. They do not perceive numbers.

That said, a TV is more than enough, technically speaking. They're meant to be viewed from a distance. I'm sure if you got close up to the TV, it's poorer quality.. which is why Monitor users demand something more high end for 4K. But TV's aren't meant to be view so closely to begin with.

 

[Salty_sandwich]

Exactly. Only your eyes matter. They do not perceive numbers.

That said, a TV is more than enough, technically speaking. They're meant to be viewed from a distance. I'm sure if you got close up to the TV, it's poorer quality.. which is why Monitor users demand something more high end for 4K. But TV's aren't meant to be view so closely to begin with.

yeah I don't sit close to the screen, have the PC in living room, for the money I have no complaints what so ever and very happy with what I have and what it cost me.

if I don't have high end stuff I cant feel disappointed lol like I have in the past.

 

[YautjaLord]

Will buy this thing next year. Will also have my current (22EA53) along with it, will be used for Blender video/graphical editing & for CPU-Z/Task Manager/HWInfo64/etc... monitoring, while i play on the 4k one.

 

[ArbitraryAffection]

I am playing on a 1080p monitor but often use Virtual Super Resolution to render at either 1800p or 2160p depending on the game.

 

[EntropyZ]

It's Ultrawide 1080/1440p or nothing for me. 4K is just too hard to drive most modern games at reasonable settings and framerates. I can't stand anything lower than 75FPS. While I like that 4K was adopted fairly quickly and drove prices of monitors and TV's down a fair bit, GPU's have been slightly late to the party to provide enough horsepower for above 60 FPS+High/Ultra settings in many titles.

 

[bug]

It's interesting. Whenever a CPU is removed, the comments section is full of "CPUs don't matter when you game at 4k". Yet three quarters of enthusiasts freely admit they're not playing at 4k yet and don't intend to. Just sayin'.

 

[Camm]

I dunno, 3440x1440 ultrawide is getting close, but technically not at 4k yet.

 

[xorbe]

3440x1440 is only 59% of 4K pixels ... it's a long ways away, you need 67% more (!) gpu power to drive 4K

 

[danbert2000]

I game on a Vizio P65-F1 and a GTX 1080. Most games I have to turn the settings down or use resolution scaling, but I'm still able to get all the benefits of higher than 1440p detail and HDR. I'm currently running Assassin's Creed Odyssey at effectively a 72% resolution scale and 50 Hz with settings a mix of high and very high. So, a brand new game that runs like a dog and I'm still making it work.

Other games run with no problem at 4k, like Civ 6, Battlefield 1, Rocket League, Witcher 3 with settings reduced and the 50 Hz trick. And for beating a console 4k experience, the 1080 is still plenty. I could run practically any game I want at 30 fps Ultra, 50 is a nice compromise and 60 is best, of course.

Even scaling down to 1440p on a 4k TV is not the worst, but I usually sacrifice Ultra settings for resolution when I can.

For all you people looking for 4k monitors, I would suggest checking Rtings.com. They added monitor reviews and they go in depth. The whole 4k TV thing doesn't work for everyone, but I do find it funny that I bought a 65" TV for around the same price as some of these "gaming" 4k monitors. I hope the monitor prices drop soon.

 

[StrayKAT]

I game on a Vizio P65-F1 and a GTX 1080. Most games I have to turn the settings down or use resolution scaling, but I'm still able to get all the benefits of higher than 1440p detail and HDR. I'm currently running Assassin's Creed Odyssey at effectively a 72% resolution scale and 50 Hz with settings a mix of high and very high. So, a brand new game that runs like a dog and I'm still making it work.

Other games run with no problem at 4k, like Civ 6, Battlefield 1, Rocket League, Witcher 3 with settings reduced and the 50 Hz trick. And for beating a console 4k experience, the 1080 is still plenty. I could run practically any game I want at 30 fps Ultra, 50 is a nice compromise and 60 is best, of course.

Even scaling down to 1440p on a 4k TV is not the worst, but I usually sacrifice Ultra settings for resolution when I can.

For all you people looking for 4k monitors, I would suggest checking Rtings.com. They added monitor reviews and they go in depth. The whole 4k TV thing doesn't work for everyone, but I do find it funny that I bought a 65" TV for around the same price as some of these "gaming" 4k monitors. I hope the monitor prices drop soon.

Witcher 3 is one of the ones I kick back down to 1080p . Any trick is not worth it to me, even with Freesync (I'm using a Vega). I doubt I could run Odyssey either, but who knows.. Ubi's other open world game (Far Cry 5) does 4K pretty well.

 

[BrainCruser]

Yes, I got a benq 4k ips monitor for 500euros.
I ran it on a gtx 1060 6gb, with upscaling on high end AAA games, but I mostly play 2011-2014 games like War thunder and World of tanks, and the 1060 didn't have any issues running those games.

Last month I upgraded to a 1080 ti, since it turned out that the next gen gpus are a sidestep. This one runs everything on ultra at 60 fps.
BTW war thunder looks gorgeous at 4k.

 

[las]

I'm at 1440p 165 Hz. I'll never ever go back to 60 Hz gaming on PC. 120 Hz is bare minimum with 100+ fps.
The smoothness and responsiveness is much more important to me than more pixels.